- (1.) The present proceeding has been initiated on the basis of a reference of the District Judge, Gautambudh Nagar dated 17.10.2006 against Janak Singh Tomar, Advocate, Civil Court, Gautambudh Nagar under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the Act. Initially the matter was placed before the Administrative Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, who given his comment on 7.12.2006 as follows; Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for taking a decision as to whether cognizance should be taken or not.
(2.) The matter thereafter was placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice who had approved the matter to be placed before the Court of contempt jurisdiction on 2.2.2007. This is how the matter came upon the judicial side and the notice was issued to Janak Singh Tomar to show-cause as to why he may not be prosecuted for contempt by order dated 19.2.2007. The charges were framed in the presence of the contemnor on 26.9.2007 by the Bench comprising of Hon'ble K.S. Rakhra, J. and Hon'ble S.C. Nigam, J, which is being reproduced below; That you made the following statement in Civil Revision No. 34 of 2006 before the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar; YAH KI AADESH DINAK 19.7.2006 GAIR KANOONI, SAAJISHI, EVAM NYANYK SHAKTI KA BHRASHTHACHAR KE PHAL SWAROOP KHULA DURUPYOG AUR KABIL KAIMI NAHI HAIIS VADD KO KEVAL BHRASTHACHAR KI TAKAT SE TATHA NYAYIKADHIKARIYO KE NYAYIK DURUPAYOG KAR MAMLE KO LAMBIT RAKHAGAYAHAINOIDASE SAMBHANDHIT BHRASTHAADHIKARIGARN BHARAT VARSH KE KISI NYAYIKADHIKARIYAANYAADHIKARI KO KHARIDNE KI TAKAT RAKHNE KADAVAKARTHE HAI TATHA JIN NYAYIKADHIKARIYO NE UPROKT VAD SUNAHAI, UNKE SE KUCHH NE APNE KO UPAR SE PURASANRAKSHAN MILNE KA DAVA KIYA HAI. IS PRAKAR BHRASTHACHAR Kl YEH DOR BAHUT BADE DAIRE MAIN PHAILI HUYI HAI. Your aforesaid statement in civil revision No. 34 of 2006 scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of the Court and it also interferes with, the due course of judicial proceedings and obstructs the administration of justice which amounts to criminal contempt as defined in Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and you are, therefore, liable to be punished under Section 12 read with Sections 10 and 15 of the Act. You are hereby required to file an affidavit in support of your defence within fifteen days.
(3.) The aforesaid contemptuous remarks made by the contemnor before the Court of District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. The contemnor had filed a Suit No. 547 of 2001 Janak Singh Tomar v. NOIDA and Ors. before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar and during the pendency of the suit an application was moved by him (Application No. 147-C-2) with a prayer that "either the suit be decreed as no issue is made out or the Chief Legal Advisor and Chief Executive Officer of NOIDA be summoned in person to clarify their stand then suitable order be passed." The trial Court rejected the application against which a civil revision was filed in which the revisionist has uttered the aforesaid scurrilous remarks challenging the integrity and ability of the judge. The District Judge observed that the above averments can by no stretch of imagination be held to be a fair comment on the merits of the case and they are deliberate, motivated and a calculated attempt has been made to bring down the image of judiciary in the estimation of the public to impair the administration of judgeship or to tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute and further held that revisionist has committed a criminal contempt of Court by using objectionable and intemperate language. The contemnor had appeared in person before this Court on 8.12.2010 and preferred to argue the case personally. There was no expression of tendering any apology for using the contemptuous language before the Court below, instead he submitted that the contempt proceedings ought not to have been initiated against him as the notices had not been served upon him properly. He has challenged the proceeding a technical ground that this Court has no jurisdiction as no cognizance under the proviso to Section 10 of the Act has been taken. It was further contended that the entire proceeding is wholly unjust and illegal motivated with malice and a similar matter is sub judice before the Apex Court and under the gaze of Central Bureau of Investigation.;