- (1.) P.Sathasivam, J.
(2.) CRIMINAL Appeal Nos. 1108-1115 of 2004 are directed against the common judgment and final order dated 25.08.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr. O.C.P. Nos. 18 and 25 of 1999, Cr.O.C.P. Nos. 3,4,5,18,19 and 20 of 2001 whereby the Division Bench after rejecting the claim of the appellants herein found all of them guilty of criminal contempt and convicted them under Section 12 read with Sections 15 and 2(e) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced them to various terms of simple imprisonment and fine. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, one Surinder Sharma has filed Crl. A. No. 1206 of 2004. Since the issue in all these appeals is common and relate to one incident, they are being disposed of by the following judgment. Brief facts : (a) The District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, by his letter dated 16.09.1999, addressed to the Registrar, High Court of Punjab & Haryana, forwarded Letter No. 376 dated 14.09.1999 written by Shri Rakesh Singh, Civil Judge (Junior Division-cum-Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class) Faridabad which was addressed to him. In the said letter, the Judicial Magistrate has stated that on 11.09.1999 at about 3 p.m., when he was dealing with the remand of accused Soran in FIR No. 136 dated 13.06.1999, under Sections 393/452/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") pertaining to Police Station Chhainsa, the Assistant Public Prosecutor requested him for remanding the accused to police custody. By that time, Mr. L.N. Prashar, Advocate, one of the contemnors/appellants herein, who represented the accused, opposed the request of police remand. After hearing the arguments, the Magistrate remanded the accused to police custody. When the order of police remand was not found favourable, Mr. L.N. Prashar, Advocate became enraged and started hurling abuses and derogatory remarks against him. Upon hearing the remarks, he tried to pacify him and requested him to behave properly but he did not relent and again uttered unparliamentary words and also threatened him with dire consequences. (b) It was further stated that the accused Soran was being produced in four criminal cases on that very day and was being represented by Mr. Prashar in all the matters. When he took another remand paper of the same accused, Mr. Prashar became furious and again uttered unparliamentary words and also threatened him. When he kept on sitting on the dias, Mr. Prashar called his fellow colleagues including Mr. O.P. Sharma, Rajinder Sharma, Surinder Sharma, Advocates, in total about 15-20 Advocates, who all belonged to the same group. Then, he requested Mr. O.P. Sharma, who is a senior member of the Bar, to request Mr. Prashar to behave properly in the Court. However, Mr. O.P. Sharma sided with Mr. Prashar and along with other Advocates shouted slogans and abused in filthy language and also threatened him. (c) It was further stated that Advocates were very aggressive and wanted to assault him physically. To avoid any further deterioration in the situation, he retired to his Chamber. One of his staff members, namely, Shri Raj Kumar, Ahlmad, had informed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad and the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridabad about the incident and they came to his Chamber and they also overheard Mr. Prashar shouting in the Court. After sometime, Mr. O.P. Goyal, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Faridabad came there and pacified the Advocates. (d) In continuation of his letter dated 14.09.1999, the Magistrate addressed another letter dated 24.09.1999 to the District Judge, Faridabad. In the said letter, it was stated that Mr. Prashar and Mr. O.P. Sharma, Advocates had criminal record and these persons have indulged in pressure tactics since long and highlighted all the details about them. (e) The entire incident was published in a local newspaper 'Mazdoor Morcha' which necessitated action under the Act against Shri Satish Kumar, owner, publisher, printer and Editor of the said newspaper. (f) Based on the letter of the District & Sessions Judge as well as letter of the Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, the High Court took the matter by suo motu and initiated contempt proceedings against the conternnors under Section 2(c) of the Act relating to the incident which took place on 11.09.1999 in the Court of Shri Rakesh Singh, Civil Judge, Faridabad for taking appropriate action. Before the High Court, the respective contemnors/Advocates filed affidavits highlighting the circumstances under which the unfortunate incident occurred and by filing separate affidavits they tendered unconditional apology and also regretted for the same. On direction by the High Court, all of them appeared before the Magistrate concerned and expressed their regret and also tendered unconditional apology. The Division Bench, taking note of seriousness of the issue and finding that the reference made by the Magistrate is based upon correct facts and overall conduct of the contemnors found all of them guilty of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act and imposed simple imprisonment of six months/three months with a fine of Rs. 1,000-2,000/- each. As stated earlier, challenging the said conviction and sentence, the above appeals have been filed.
(3.) HEARD Mr. Ram Jethmalani and Mr. V. Giri, learned senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar, learned Counsel for the respondent. Submission of Mr. Ram Jethmalani 4. At the outset, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the fact that the appellants herein, after realizing their mistake immediately, offered unconditional apology by filing affidavits before the High Court and also appeared before the Magistrate before whom the unfortunate incident had occurred, tendered apology and regret for their action, prayed for leniency and setting aside the order of the High Court sentencing the contemnors to jail. He also submitted that inasmuch as the alleged incident had occurred in September, 1999, considering the passage of time and by realizing the mistake tendered unconditional apology before the High Court as well as before the concerned Magistrate, their sentence of imprisonment may be set aside. He further submitted that all the appellants/contemnors prepared to file fresh affidavits conveying their unconditional apology and regret for the incident and also assured that they would not indulge in such activities in future. Controversial behaviour of the Contemnors 6. Before considering the acceptability of the affidavits filed by the appellants, in order to visualize seriousness of the matter, it is useful to refer the exchange of words and behaviour of the appellants (in English version) while the Magistrate remanded the accused Soran to police custody. They are: "You have taken bribe. You do all works only after taking bribe. You are indulging in gangism." "What can you do to me. You may make contempt against me. I will suck your blood. I will not leave you till High Court. Bahanchod, you are considering this Court as inn. Come out, we will just now teach you a taste of Judgeship. My name is L.N. Prashar. You will come to know today as to how you pass orders against me. Even earlier, criminal cases are pending against me. If one more case proceeds against me, it would make no difference. It would cause you very clearly to have an enmity with me and now I will see to it that I suck your blood. If you have any courage, you come out." 7. When the Magistrate took up another remand paper of the same accused, Mr. Prashar, again became furious and uttered that: "You dismiss this bail application. I have no faith in your Court. I am not going to furnish any bail bonds. There is no need for us to have any bail from your Court." 8. At that stage, the Magistrate asked his Reader to call the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad so that the situation could be brought under control. On this, Mr. Prashar remarked : "What can your CJM do. You may call him as well. We will see your CJM also. You are indulging in big gangism." 9. Thereafter, the Magistrate requested Mr. O.P. Sharma, Advocate, who is a senior member of the Bar, to request Mr. Prashar to behave properly in the Court. However, Mr. O.P. Sharma, Advocate, sided with Mr. Prashar and shouted. "We will do like this only. Lock his Court and raise slogans against him.... On the asking of Shri O.P. Sharma, Advocate, other Advocates accompanying him raised slogans, "RAKESH SINGH MURDABAD, RAKESH SINGH MURDABAD............. .............He was also threatened by saying you come out. We will see your gangism." 10. When all the officers were sitting in the chamber of the Magistrate, they over-heard Mr. Prashar shouting in the Court in loud voice saying, "You are indulging in gangism. You are passing orders of your choice. The contempt can not harm me. I will see to it as to how you remain in service." Professional Conduct and Etiquette - Rules and decisions of this Court 11. In the light of the above scenario, before considering the fresh affidavits filed before this Court by the appellants - Advocates, let us recapitulate various earlier orders of this Court as to the duties of lawyer towards the Court and the Society being a member of the legal profession. 12. The role and status of lawyers at the beginning of Sovereign and Democratic India is accounted as extremely vital in deciding that the Nation's administration was to be governed by the Rule of Law They were considered intellectuals amongst the elites of the country and social activists amongst the downtrodden. These include the names of galaxy of lawyers like Mahatma Gandhi, Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhulabhai Desai, C. Rajagopalachari, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, to name a few. The role of lawyers in the framing of the Constitution needs no special mention. In a profession with such a vivid history it is regretful, to say the least, to witness instances of the nature of the present kind. Lawyers are the officers of the Court in the administration of justice. 13. Section I of Chapter-ll, Part VI titled "Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette" of the Bar Council of India Rules specifies the duties of an Advocate towards the Court which reads as under: "Section I - Duty to the Court 1. An Advocate shall, during the presentation of his case and while otherwise acting before a Court, conduct himself with dignity and self- respect. He shall not be servile and whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint against a judicial officer, it shall be his right and duty to submit his grievance to proper authorities. 2. An Advocate shall maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, bearing in mind that the dignity of the judicial office is essential for the survival of a free community. 3. An Advocate shall not influence the decision of a Court by any illegal or improper means. Private communications with a judge relating to a pending case are forbidden. 4. An Advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the Court, opposing Counsel or parties which the Advocates himself ought not to do. An Advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouth-piece of the client, and shall exercise his own judgement in the use of restrained language in correspondence, avoiding scurrilous attacks in pleadings, and using intemperate language during arguments in Court. An Advocate shall appear in Court at all times only in the prescribed dress, and his appearance shall always be presentable.;