S.S.TIWARI, J. - (1.) PRESENT contempt proceeding has its genesis in the Reference made to this Court by Sri Husain Ahmad Ansari, Civil Judge (J.D.) Court no. 10 Deoria for initiation of proceeding under section 2 (c ) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 punishable under section 12of the Act. Upon receipt of reference, it would appear, the matter was processed by the office and initially, the matter was placed before the Administrative Judge Deoria who opined in the following words. " Recommended for initiation of contempt proceedings as prayed."
(2.) THE matter, thereafter, was processed and placed before Hon. Chief Justice who appended the approval vide order dated 21.7.2006 and it is in this backdrop that the matter came to be referred on judicial side and notices were initially issued to three persons namely Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ram Prasad Kushwaha and Shekhar Gupta Advocates. Subsequently, by means of order dated 20.11.2006 the notice issued against Chandrashekhar Gupta was recalled and the matter was ordered to be listed on 18.12.2006 for framing of charges against the contemnors Sanjai Kumar Singh and Ram Prasad Kushwaha. The charges were framed vide order dated 18.12.2006 by the Bench consisting of Hon. S.S.Kulshrestha and Hon. A.K.Roopanwal. The charges framed against the contemnors may be abstracted below. "Firstly, that on 31 May 2006 Sri Hussain Ahmed Ansari, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Deoria was the Presiding officer of Courtno. 10. On that date 93 cases were listed in that court. He disposed of a large number of cases and injunction applications were also taken up buy him from 6.30 am to 12.30 p.m. When he retired in his chamber, it was at about 2 p.m. He was looking into the application 6 C moved in suit no. 1110 of 2006, Smt. Pushpa Devi v. Anil Kumar. You entered in his chamber without taking permission and you both (Sri Sanjai Kumar Singh and Sri Shekhar Gupta) threatened the Presiding officer by making objectionable gestures and asked him to modify the order passedin O.S. No. 1072 of 2006 Pradeep v. Sitaram and thereby committed contempt of court punishable under section 2 C of the Contempt of Court Act 1971. Secondly, that when the Presiding officer declined to modify his order passed in O.S. No. 1072 of 2006, Pradeep v. Sitaram and told you that if you are aggrieved with the order may assail it in higher court in the competent forum, on it you made allegation against stenographer of that court that he demanded Rs. 10,000/-. As such allegation of demanding Rs. 10,000/- was only to scandalize the court and lower its dignity and also to lower the authority of the court, thus you have hereby committed contempt of court punishable under section 2 -C (1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1971. Charges have been read over to the contemnors, they may file their counter affidavit within four weeks."
(3.) IN the aftermath of framing of charges, the contemnors filed their separate counter affidavits. It is substantially stated in para 4 that he and R.P.Kushwasha canvassed their arguments on injunction application and thereafter, the file was retained by the presiding officer for orders. In the meantime, J.P.Srivastava, steno to the officer went inside and on return, made a demand for Rs. 10,000/- in return for granting the injunction order. The contemnors, it is averred, made a written complaint to the Presiding officer on 31.5.2006. When the officer retired to chamber, he sent for the contemnors who immediately went inside the chambers and were baffled at the behaviour of the officer who insisted for withdrawing the application but being amenable to his advice, the contemnors it is further alleged, declined to withdraw the application and instead demanded enquiry and action against the stenographer. This infuriated the officer who torn the application to pieces and threw the same at Sri Kushwaha. Thereafter, he made a written complaint to the Bar Association and also stated the facts on affidavit which was submitted at the end of President Bar Association On 31.5.2006 an emergency meeting was convened and conduct of the officer was deprecated. It is also averred that resolution dated 3.6.2006 was also transmitted to District Judge, to Hon. Chief Justice and also to Bar Council. A detailed representation it is also averred was also sent to Administrative Judge and instead of taking action for redressal of grievance, he received the contempt notice. He also touched upon legal aspects stating that it was not a case constituting contempt. The counter affidavit filed by Kushwaha contemnor is more or less on the same lines. Both the contemnors it would appear from the record, filed apology as contained in affidavits which were ordered to be placed on record vide order dated 12.12.2008 in which both the counsel apologized profusely for what has happened.;