Dharmadhikari, J. –1. An act of a lawyer attacking the reputation and character of a Judge is as grave an offence worthy of condemnation as of a priest in a temple defacing and defiling the deity installed in it, because by such act he not only destroys the very institution from which he derives status and sustenance but does a greater general damage by shaking faith of the devotees and hurting the feelings and sentiments of the worshippers who through his mediation and assistance seek spiritual gain and contentment.

2. These introductory comments are called for on the facts which have been brought to the notice of this Court by a reference under section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') made by the Presiding Judge of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate of Balodabazar district Raipur against the contemner who is a practising lawyer there.

3. It is not in dispute that the Presiding Judge B.R. Nikunj, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar by Judgment dt. 8.1.1997 in Criminal Case 497/87 convicted the father of the contemner for offence under section 336,427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to one year three months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1250/-. After the above Judgment of conviction and sentence the contemner made a complaint in writing supported by his affidavit to the Chief Justice of this High Court and sent its copies to the President of India, Chief Justice of India, Registrar of the High Court, President of State Bar Council and District & Sessions Judge, Raipur. In the written complaint with affidavit sworn on 22.7.1997 he made the following allegations against the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Shri B.R. Nikunj :

(1) The criminal case in which the Presiding Judge convicted the father of the contemner was pending since last 10 years and on 26.7.1996, he disclosed to the contemner that such old criminal cases have been kept by him in his trunk for dropping them on the directions of the Supreme Court of India. The Judge, thereafter on 8.1.1997, without hearing the arguments and although no offence was proved against his father, convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine as mentioned above.

(2) A senior lawyer Shri T.N. Mishra came to the house of the contemner and in the presence of the brother of the former gave information to the contemner that the Judge had confided to the said senior Advocate that he had passed sentence against the father of the contemner because some persons had poisioned his ears. Similar information was given to him by another advocate Kamal Dixit. After the imposition of punishment, his father suffered heart attack and is under medical treatment. It was alleged that the Judge has passed the Judgment under extraneous influence.

(3) The Judge has developed illicit relations with several businessmen engaged in nefarious trades and through them he arranges items such as car and other luxuries. It is said that this conduct is unbecoming of a Judge and such persons with whom he has association influence his judgment.

(4) The Judge by putting undue influence called the contemer to his chamber and asked him number of times to make arrangement for a V.C.R. for his personal use.

(5) The Judge allowed a Civil Case Vinod Tiwari v. Satish Soni to be filed before him without affixure of Court fees of Rs. 4,000/- payable on it. He not only registered the suit but without insisting on payment of Court fees decided the suit and thereby cleverly caused loss of Rs. 4,000/- to the State.

(6) The Judge is also seen freely participating in public functions, the marriages and marriage procession. This habit definitely influences his decisions in cases before him.

(7) That the Judge is given to use of insulting language towards parties, litigants and lawyers. He represented to Shri Ekka S.D.O. (Police) that for his transfer political leaders are demanding a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from him (the S.D.O.).

(8) In criminal case State v. Umasha