Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Contempt application has been registered under Section 10 read with Section 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1971") against contemnor Jagdish Chandra Srivastav, Advocate, on a Reference letter dated 29.1.2011 made by Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, Additional District Judge/FTC -I, Kushinagar, Padrauna complaining about conduct of contemnor shown on 28.1.2011 during hearing of Criminal Revision No. 34/07 Chandra Shekhar v. State. The relevant extract of the letter is reproduced as under: Today on 28.1.2011 after sitting on dias at 10.30 A.M. Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava Advocate, entered the Court room and just after entry shouting in a high pitch asked a question from the Court, without hearing him how it was written in the order dated 25.1.2011 that arguments of both sides have been heard and how the file was fixed for decision on 28.1.2011.... Hearing the aforesaid statement of the Court Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava started shouting very loudly and threatened the Court that he would see how the Court passes judgement in the case. Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava, Advocate continued shouting in the Court for about 5 -7 minutes, which (his utterance) could not be heard clearly due to noise because hearing shouts of Jagdish Chandra Srivastava, a number of litigants, court staff and some Advocates have entered the Courtroom. Body language and face guesture of Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava was clearly exhibiting that he was using derogatory words against the Court. Thus Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava Advocate obstructed the judicial work of the Court for ten minutes. Hearing shouts of Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastavas, about 50 litigants and Advocates gathered in the Court room due to noise. At that time Court's staff including Reader Sri Ravindra Chaurasia, Orderly Sri Sushil Dubey, Court Moharrir Sri Gopal Singh, Ahalmad Sri Santosh Chaubey, Stenographer Sri Janardan Pathak were present. Besides Secretary of Bar Sri Rakesh Pandey Advocate, Senior Advocate Sri Mahant Gopal Das, Junior counsel of Sri Hari Shankar Dikshit, Sri Rajesh Srivastava Advocate (who visits Kushinagar every Thursday, Friday and Saturday from Gorakhpur district and practices in the matters of M.A.C. on behalf of Insurance Company) were present. Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava was told by the Court if he wanted to argue then he should first file his Vakalatnama and then his arguments would be heard, otherwise if the party Amawas, if so desires, may himself address to the Court. But Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava paid no attention to the Court's observation and inside the Court room continued shouting. It seems that Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava with an intention to delay the proceedings in the case does not allow to pass decision. It is for this reason, neither he filed his Vakalatnama in the case nor argued, nor the party put his case before the Court. In this way Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava, Advocate has obstructed the Court work for about ten minutes by his indecent, derogatory conduct and making noise. Simultaneously he has insulted the Court."
(2.) SUPPORTING the aforesaid incident the learned Judicial Officer has also sent statements of Ravindra Prasad Chaurasia, Reader, Janardan, P.A., Santosh Chaubey, Appeal clerk. Notice was issued to the contemnor on 14.10.2014. The contemnor filed reply vide affidavit dated 6.4.2015 wherein he raised the objection that the contempt proceedings are barred by limitation. The objection with regard to limitation raised by contemnor has already been considered and decided on merits vide order dated 6.4.2015, wherein this Court has rejected the said objection and held that the proceedings are not barred by limitation by placing reliance on Apex Court's decision in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and others, : (2001) 7 SCC 549.
(3.) ON merits of the allegations contained in Reference letter, the contemnor said that a complaint was also made by Presiding Officer to Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the matter was examined by Disciplinary Committee in case No. 38 of 2011 and the Committee found complaint made by Judicial Officer, without any basis, and dropped the proceedings. A copy of said order is on record which shows that the Bar Council issued notice to complainant i.e. the Judicial Officer concerned, who did not appear or submitted his response, whereupon on the basis of statement and affidavit given by contemnor, the matter was dropped. In any case, the proceedings of the Bar Council are neither binding on this Court nor otherwise constitute an evidence in support of the contemnor but his attempt is clearly to denounce the correctness of the allegations made by the subordinate Court in the Reference in question. In para 9 and 10 the contemnor then proceeded to tender apology but this Court did not find his apology genuine and bona fide, hence declined to accept the same and by order dated 6.4.2015 framed following two charges against him: - - "That you Jagdish Chandra Srivastava, admitted on 28.01.2011at 10:50 a.m. in the Court of Ashwani Kumar Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kushinagar, Padrauna, while the Court was hearing Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2007 Chandra Shekhar v. State, you questioned the authority of the Court regarding the words "AADESH PATRA ME KAISE LIKH DIYA GAYA HAI KI UBAI PAKSHON KI BAHAS SUNI GAYI TATHA PATRAWALI KO 28.01.2011 KO KAISE NIRNAY HETU NIYAT KAR DIYA GAYA" aforesaid act tantamount to under mining the authority of Court. Thus you have committed criminal contempt defined under Section 2(C) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (Hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") punishable under Section 12 of the Act." "That you Jagdish Chandra Srivastava on 28.01.2011 at 11:50 a.m. entered in the Court of Ashwani Kumar Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kushi Nagar, Padrauna, while the Court was hearing Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2007 Chandra Shekhar v. State, started shouting in loud voice, threatened the Court that he will see that house the Court will pass order in the Court, the indecent words used, could not be heard on account of noise, however, from visible expression of your face clearly reflected that you are using abusive words against the Court and in this way you have created hindrance in Court proceedings for ten minutes, the aforesaid act was committed in presence of Court staff, litigants, advocates and in this way you have not only scandalized the Court by visible expression, lower down the authority of the Court, obstructed administration of justice. Thus you have committed criminal contempt defined under Section 2(C) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (Hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") punishable under Section 12 of the Act." ;