S.S.TIWARI, J. - (1.) THE contempt proceeding in hand has its genesis in the Reference dated 13.7.2007 made by Sri Ravindra Kumar II, Civil Judge (S.D.) Kanpur Nagar duly forwarded by the District Judge Kanpur Nagar dated 13.7.2007 whereby the officer has referred the matter to this Court for initiation of contempt proceeding against Manoj Nigam, Advocate, Civil Courts Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) IT would transpire from the reference made to this Court that on 11.7.2007, while the litigant namely Mohiuddin Khusro was present in the court presided over by Sri Ravindra Kumar II Civil Judge (S.D.) Kanpur Nagar, in connection with Misc cases nos. 5/74/2004, Aslam v. Mohiuddin Khusro, 17/174/2005 Aslam v. Mohiuddin Khusro and 75/70/1983 Aslam v. Mohiuddin Khusro, between 2.30 and 3 p.m when the court had passed orders on adjournment application in original Misc. Case no. 75/70/83 and had passed on the papers to Reader to get the notice served to Mohiuddin Khusro as he was present and while the court was busy hearing other cases, the officer heard sound of someone being slapped and when he paid attention to what was happening in court he saw the contemnor slapping litigant Mohidduin Khusro. It is stated that the contemnor gave two slaps on the face of litigant aforesaid in front of him. It is further stated that the officer called on both the contemnor and the litigant to come forward. When the court queried the contemnor why he slapped the litigant he explained that he was using derogatory language. It is further stated that the occurrence was witnessed besides him, by the Reader as also the steno who were present in the court. The incident as occurred, it is further stated, has been noted down on the file of Original Misc. Case no. 75/70/83 Aslam Parvez v. U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board and the matter was renumbered as Misc. Case no. 182/74/07. On 10.9.2009 the Administrative Judge passed a detailed order upon which file was laid before Hon. Chief Justice on which the order dated 11.9.2009 was passed directing to post the matter before the Court assigned with the jurisdiction. Upon the report of Administrative Judge, in which delay of about one and half year was pointed out in processing the file, query was made from the office for the causative factor of delay upon which the Registrar General explained that the file was returned on 28.8.2009 without any order from the end of the then Administrative Judge. Sri Sanjai Kumar, appearing for the contemnor did not argue on merits of the case and instead, invoked the compassion of the Court for accepting the unqualified apology which the contemnor has already tendered and prayed for discharging the contemnor. He prayed for lenient view stating that the contemnor was, at the relevant time, articled to Sri P.N. Nigam as Junior 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 again followed by the submission that the contemnor on account of his inexperience and being unable to bear with repeated provocation of Moinuddin, in a fit of passion, was lashed into slapping him. The learned counsel also submitted that it was 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 and anguished that we have deal with a case involving a lawyer under the Contempt of Court Act. We proceed further with the case indicating to ourselves a 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 maintenance of dignity of the courts is one of the cardinal principles of rule of law in a free democratic country and when the acts complained of, appear to result in undermining the dignity of the courts and course of justice the same must be held to be repugnant and punished. 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.;