S.S.TIWARI, IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J. - (1.) THE contempt proceeding in the instant case has its genesis in the Reference made by Sri M.K.Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Budaun duly forwarded by the District Judge Budaun vide letter dated 12.5.2009 and 14.5.2009 respectively whereby the officer has referred the matter to this Court for initiation of contempt proceeding against Sri Uma Shanker Sharma, Advocate Budaun.
(2.) IT would transpire from the record that on 23.4.2009 at 3.15 p.m while the officer was engaged in hearing final arguments in S.T. No. 1093 of 2007 state v. Buntee and others, the contemnor accompanied with Sri Kshitiz Shankhdhar Advocate his son and junior Sri Subodh Kumar Sharma, Sri Abhishek Rastogi Advocates and 8 to 10 other advocates entered the court room and the contemnor who was leading the mob consisting of advocates, became boisterous and disturbed the serenity of the court speaking loudly that "This is not Pakistan; that you are running your court according to Marshal Law." Thereafter, he struck his hands on dais of the court and yelled that "Hear Mirdulesh Kumar Singh you are dishonest. You have passed wrong orders of warrants against my clients". It is further narrated that when the Presiding officer asked him to calm down the contemnor got enraged and by striking his hands on the dais yelled that "you at the maximum, refer the matter of contempt to Hon. High Court but I will not be affected in any manner. You are in service. I will gather whole bar against you and will make false complaints against you, then you will understand. My practice is more than your service." The above words uttered by the contemnor had the effect of scandalizing the court in relation to its judicial functioning undermining dignity and was an affront to the majesty of law. On 13.7.2009, the Administrative Judge Budaun passed the following order. "Prima facie this appears to be a case of trying to overawe the Court and to lower its dignity. Kindly place before the Chief Justice for direction." On 15.7.2009, Hon. Chief Justice appended approval and it is in this backdrop that the matter has come up before this Bench. We have heard learned counsel appearing for him. We have also heard learned A.G.A. Sri Manish Tiwari, appearing for the contemnor brought certain facts to the notice of the Court and abstained from arguing the case on merits and made impassioned plea for taking lenient view of the entire matter and invoked the compassion of the Court for accepting the unqualified apology which the contemnor has already tendered and for discharging the contemnor. He prayed for lenient view stating that the contemnor was fairly senior having already put in 40 years of practice in the civil court at Budaun attended with further submission that at no point of time, his conduct had departed from the path of rectitude and sobriety or of a conduct expected of a lawyer of his stature nor has he been involved in any contempt proceeding prior to this. To prop up his submission invoking compassion, the learned counsel submitted that the contemnor cannot be said to be addicted to using contemptuous language and making scurrilous attacks as it is his first aberration and therefore, he should be purged and should be given a chance to expiate his aberrant behaviour.
(3.) HERE in this case, we are pained that we have to deal with a case involving a lawyer under the Contempt of Court Act. We proceed further with the case indicating to ourselves the piece of advice that the Court should not be over or hypersensitive and should not exercise this jurisdiction on any exaggerated notion of the dignity of the Judges and must act with the dispassionate dignity and decorum which befits the judicial office. At the same time it should be borne in mind that the Court is the protector of public justice. Before we proceed further, we must observe that the apology is not a protective gear to be used as a shield to protect the contemnor as a last resort. The apology, in order to dilute the gravity of the offence, we must say, should be voluntary, unconditional and indicative of remorse and contrition and it should be tendered at the earliest opportunity and any apology preceded by lame excuses and justification merely to get rid of the situation on the assumption that courts sparingly use the discretion of punishment is nothing but a tactful move to ward off the punishment.;