S.C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal filed under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated January 13, 1987 whereby the Appellant has been convicted for having committed contempt of Court under Section 2(c)(i) of the Act and has been sentenced to pay Rs. 1,000/ - as fine and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.
(2.) THE Appellant, who is practising as an Advocate at Narnaul was representing the Plaintiff in Civil Suit titled Hari Ram v. Municipal Committee. On September 20, 1985, the Appellant appeared in the said suit for the Plaintiff and orally prayed for ex parte ad interim stay. The said request was declined by the Subordinate Judge, Narnaul, who ordered for issuance of notice to the Defendants for September 24,1985. On September 24, 1985, Shri Banwari Lal Sharma appeared for the Defendants and requested for a date for filing a reply to the said application which request was not opposed by the Appellant but the Appellant prayed for ad interim stay in favour of the Plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge told the Appellant that the question of ad interim stay would be considered after filing of the reply by the Defendants and adjourned the case for September 26, 1985. It appears that the Appellant was not satisfied with the order passed by the Subordinate Judge and according to the Subordinate Judge, Shri S.R. Sharma, the Appellant uttered the following words in the Court. You are wholly favouring the Municipal Committee. Are you sitting as Judge or as Administrator of Municipal Committee ? To me it seems that you are deciding the case as Administrator of Municipal Committee. You are acting as if you are a contractor of the Municipal Committee. I do not expect any justice from you I do not think that you will grant stay to me as you are fully siding with the Municipal Committee. You are not granting stay to me as you are in collusion with the Deputy Commissioner and under his (Deputy Commissioner) influence, you do not want to grant stay to me and that he will complain against me to the Hon'ble High Court. On September 25, 1985, the Subordinate Judge submitted a report Ex. PA to the District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul for taking necessary action against the Appellant wherein the aforementioned words alleged to have been uttered by the Appellant were set out. The District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul submitted a report dated October 12, 1985, to the High Court and on the basis of the said report, proceedings for contempt were initiated against the Appellant by the High Court. The Appellant submitted a reply by way of affidavit wherein he denied to have uttered the words mentioned in the report of Shri S.R. Sharma, Subordinate Judge, Narnaul to the District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul and also offered an unqualified apology. Shri S.R. Sharma filed his affidavit in the High Court and he was also examined as a witness. In addition, the High Court examined Shri Krishan Kumar Sharma, who at the relevant time reader in the Court of Shri S. R Sharma, and three advocates, namely, Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, Shri Gyan Chand Sharma and Shri Satya Narain Sharma. The Appellant did not examine himself as a witness before the High Court.
(3.) THE High Court found that the Appellant had attacked the integrity of the learned Sub -judge by saying that he was a contractor of the Municipal Committee, that he was in collusion with the Deputy Commissioner and he was under his influence and that the attack made on the learned Sub -Judge disparaging in character and derogatory to his dignity would virtually shake the confidence of the public in him and that the aspersions made against the Sub -Judge were much more than merely insult and in fact, they scandalise the Court in such a way as to create distrust in the people's mind and impair confidence of the people in Court. The High Court was, therefore, of the view that the Appellant had brought himself clearly within the ambit of contempt of Court and he was accordingly found guilty under Section 2 (c)(i) of the Act. As regards the apology tendered by the Appellant, the High Court observed that this was not the first occasion and earlier also the proceedings for contempt had been initiated against him in pursuance of a report made by Shri K.K. Chopra, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul in COCP No. 12 of 1983 wherein also the Appellant had tendered an unqualified apology in the High Court and the rule against him was discharged and that the Appellant is addicted to using contemptuous language and making scurrilous attacks on the judges The High Court held that apology must, in order to dilute the gravity of the offence, be voluntary, unconditional and indicative of remorse and contrition and it should be tendered at the earliest opportunity and further, that the aspersions mentioned in the letter Ex. P.A. at 'A' to 'A' sent by Shri S.R. Sharma to the District and Sessions Judge, Narnaul were made by the Appellant with a design and were not simply thoughtless and in such a case, the Appellant cannot be allowed to get away by simply feeling sorry by way of apology as the easiest way. The High Court did not, therefore, accept the apology tendered by the Appellant.;