Imtiyaz Murtaza and S.S Tiwari, JJ. - (1.) The contempt proceeding in the instant case has its genesis in the Reference made by Sri Arvind Misra, Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Farukhabad vide letter dated 10/9.5.2007 whereby the officer has referred the matter to this Court for initiation of contempt proceeding against Brij Kishore Misra, Advocate Farukhabad. According to the allegations contained in the Reference made to this Court, in a pending original suit no. 343 of 1997, the defendant had filed documentary evidence on 9.5.2007 for being admitted on record of the aforesaid suit. One of the counsel for the plaintiff namely Rakesh Kumar Saxena, prayed for filing objection and acceding to his request, the Court fixed 29.5.2007 for objection and disposal thereof. The contemnor namely, Brij Kishore Misra, who was appearing as a second counsel in the aforesaid case, came to the court in a jiffy and yelled at the court in a phraseology which was undignified, and had the effect of scandalising the court in relation to its judicial functioning undermining dignity and was an affront to the majesty of law.
(2.) Referring to his further scandalous action, the District Judge Farukhabad reported that on 10.5.2007, while he was in the process of hearing the Criminal Revision no. 47 of 2007, the contemnor entered the court room in a jiffy and obstructed the hearing by complaining against a civil Judge posted in that Judgeship without naming him alleging that the officer had asked his client to change the lawyer. On being queried, the contemnor did not disclose the name of the officer. However, the District Judge tried to smooth over the matter and asked him to give in writing whatever grievance, he had against the officer that be. Instead of mellowing down, the contemnor shouted saying that the District Judge would not initiate any action as he was acquainted with his (District Judge) way of working and that he would move appropriate application against him to Adhivakta Sangh (Advocate Association). Hearing this, the District Judge asked him to leave the court as he was interrupting the judicial proceeding and undermining the dignity of the court upon which the contemnor collected mob outside the court and indulged in slogan shouting against the District Judge. On 25.6.2007, upon a note of the office, the Administrative Judge Farukhabad passed the following order. Approved and let it be placed before the Hon. Chief Justice/Senior Vacation Judge. On 20.2.2008, Hon. Chief Justice appended his approval for listing it before the appropriate Bench dealing with criminal contempt proceeding. Sri Satish Trivedi appeared for the contemnor and pleaded for merciful view in the matter. On being called upon to argue the case on merit of the case, he referred to unqualified apology stating that the contemnor has already tendered the unqualified apology and prayed for discharge taking a lenient view urging that the contemnor was fairly senior having already put in 30 years of practice attended with further submission that he can not be said to be addicted to using contemptuous language and making scurrilous attacks nor is there any previous instance of his showing disrespect to the court and whatever has happened in Court was in a spontaneity. Ultimately, he stated that he should be given a chance to expiate his unruly conduct.
(3.) We are pained that we have to deal with a case involving a lawyer again under the Contempt of Court Act. We however indicate to ourselves the piece of advice that the Court while dealing with contempt matter 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 taking a dispassionate view of the entire matter. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the Court is the protector of public justice and it has a stake in the dignity and protection of those who man the court. We would also not flinch from saying that the apology is not to be used as a weapon of defence forged always to be used as a shield to protect the contemnor as a last resort. It is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. The apology, in order to dilute the gravity of the offence, it has repeatedly been ruled in catena of decisions, should be voluntary, unconditional and indicative of remorse and real contrition and it should be tendered at the earliest opportunity. We have to administer caution to ourselves that we should not be inveigled into accepting apology from those who are addicted to using contemptuous language and making scurrilous attacks and have to their discredit, earlier instance of misfeasance.;