The court reinforced the importance of preserving judicial authority and integrity through strict sanctions against criminal contempt.

1. In this case we are required to deal with a flagrant type of aggressive criminal contempt amounting to a worst form of savagery. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal on 17-12-96 rejected the prayer for confirmation of interim - bail of certain accused persons in G.R. case No. 153/93 and to take the accused persons in custody. This enraged their lawyer Shri Tapan Roy, the contemner No. 1 and other including his law clerks Shri Swapan Adhikary and Shri Somnath Chatterjee, the contemners Nos. 2 and 3 respectively so much so that they became furious, challenged the order, abused the learned SDJM in filthy languages in open Court which are unquotable, and created chaos and terror in the Court room. The contemner Tapan Roy even attempted to assault the learned SDJM by throwing articles as wooden ruler, ink pot towards him thereby causing injury on the person of GRO, and the learned SDJM for protecting himself in the circumstances, stepped down from the Ejlash and took shelter in his chamber but Tapan Roy and the said two clerks Swapan Adhikary and Somnath Chatterjee chased him to his chamber uttering filthy languages against the learned SDJM who was however saved from further enslaught of the raiders by the intervention of GRO, CSI, Court Staff and the SDJM's security guard who closed the doors of the chamber although Shri Tapan Roy and his two clerks even tried to break open one of the doors by kicks. Court's properties were also damaged. On the basis of the report of the above noted incident from the SDJM, Ghatal through the District Judge, Midnapur showing horrendous and scandalous perpetration of outrageous contempt of Court by the said contemners, this Court took cognizance of the matter and directed the contemners to personally appear before this Court and show cause as to why they should not be appropriately dealt with for contempt. Pursuant to that order all the contemners appeared before this Court on 14-1-97 and also filed affidavits. In the affidavits the contemners tendered unconditional apology for the incident and prayed that this Court might be pleased to take liberal and lenient view of the matter and accept the unconditional apology and drop the contempt proceeding. However the affidavits also contained certain exculpatory statements as a result of which this Court thought it fit that the question of facts should be decided first before taking up the question of considering the un - conditional apology tendered by the contemners. This Court had also received in the meantime an administrative report of enquiry held by the Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the incident and statements recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in course of his administrative enquiry which was undertaken under the direction of the District Judge before this Court took cognizance of the matter. A copy of the said report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Midnapur along with the copies of statements recorded by him was made over by this Court on 14-1-97 to Sri Milan Mukherjee. The learned Advocate appearing on that day for the contemners and the contemners were given liberty to affirm and file further affidavits in the matter on 21-1-97. In view of the circumstances the contemners however, through their learned Advocate, withdrew the affidavits affirmed and filed in Court on 14-1-97. On 21-1-97 the contemners however affirmed and filed new affidavits wherein no controversy about the factual aspect of the matter was raised. On the other hand they tendered unqualified apology for whatever had happened in the Court on 17-12-96. It was also stated in these affidavits that unqualified apology was tendered in sincere and true repentance and not as a matter of defence. Mercy w