- (1.) Sri Piyush Verma, Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Ex Cadre-I), Auraiya (hereinafter referred to as the "Presiding Officer"), made a reference dated 27.08.2012 with the allegation of acts and omissions on the part of Ajay Pandey, Advocate (hereinafter referred to the "Contemnor"), in the court which constitute "criminal contempt". The reference was forwarded by Dr. Murtaza Ali, District Judge, Auraiya vide letter dated 06.11.2012. With approval of Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 17.01.2013, it was registered and notice was issued to Contemnor on 03.10.2013 to show cause, why proceeding under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1971") be not initiated against him.
(2.) In brief the complaint made by Presiding Officer of the court below is that Contemnor is continuously harassing judicial officers with his contemptuous writings and levelling contemptuous allegations against them. (i) An application dated 13.08.2012 submitted by Contemnor in Misc. Case No.14 of 2012 Ajay Pandey Vs State of U.P. has been appended alongwith Reference letter in which he said that: 588269-1 "This is the result of fraud and mala fide borne by Presiding Officer and Reader" (English translation by the Court) (ii) Another application dated 13.08.2012 was submitted by Sri Ajay Pandey in Misc. Case No.8 of 2012 wherein he alleged as under: 588269-3 "On 9.8.2012 after going through the report of Presiding Officer, learned District Judge said that Presiding Officer and Reader both are acting with mens rea and thus, rejection of application is nothing but a fraud." (English Translation by Court) (iii) In Misc. Case No. 17 of 2012 Sri Ajay Pandey stated: 588269-4 "A man from Kotwali Police Station came to serve on the applicant a forged and false notice without any supportive document." 588269-5 "...... therefore, Piyush Verma, Presiding Officer could not succeed in his conspiracy." (English translation by the Court) (iv) The Contemnor filed objection in Surety Application No. 49/2002 in which question was raised about manner of court for granting bail and also accused that in the beginning, the court rejects bail application on the pretext of non-bailable crime till immoral compromise culminated between the accused and court; when immoral discussion is completed, non-bailable crime is converted into bailable crime, in continuation of it 6 accused were surprisingly granted bail on 20.07.2012, while bail of Sri Vikas Kumar and Sri Prem Nath Bisnoi was rejected on same date, this shows that the court is biased in nature. (v) The Contemnor moved an application for contempt of Court alleged to have been committed by Special Judge/ Additional District Judge (Anti-Dacoity) containing defamatory and contemptuous allegations. (vi) The order dated 11.4.2012 passed by the J.M. Court in Misc. Case no. 87/2012 on 11.04.2012 reveals that the court called out Sri Ajay Pandey, Contemnor to appear in the court in person in respect of received P.S. Paper bearing No. 95 G, 1-7. The Contemnor appeared in the court and asked the Presiding Officer to pass order immediately, whereupon the court said that the order would be passed after going through P.S. Report. In the meanwhile, the Contemnor Sri Ajay Pandey began to say that "Saare Judge beiman hai" Abhi order Pass karo Nahi to tumhe dekh lunga, tumhara C.J.M pandit ke nam par kalank hai "maine pahale bhi taman judges ki shikayat ki hai tum sab ki karunga". The court repeatedly asked and warned the Contemnor not to abuse but he became so furious that despite warning, went on abusing and disrupting business of the court and Contemnor even did not spare the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this way, act of Sri Ajay Pandey not only tarnished the image of court but lowered down dignity of the Court also, which falls under purview of the contempt. (vii) That it is also stated that this Contemnor is habitual in as much as earlier also, he was held guilty of contempt by Apex Court in Re. Ajay Pandey AIR 1997 SC 260, and in paras 43, 46, 47 the Apex Court said: "43. Having seen the entire record, we are fully satisfied that the contemner, by questioning the conduct of the Judges through his notice and demanding apology and compensation from them as also the complaint lodged against them, especially in the language employed by him, is guilty of the "criminal contempt" and is liable to be punished therefor in both the cases." "46. Having convicted the contemner for obstructing the course of justice by trying to threaten and overawe the Court by using insulting and disrespectful language and issuing notices and also launching criminal prosecution against two Hon'ble Judges, we sentence the contemner for the offence of criminal contempt as under: (a) The contemner Ajay Kumar Pandey is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. On serving this sentence for two weeks, the remaining sentence shall stand suspended for a period of two years and may be activated in case the contemner is convicted for any other offence of contempt of court within the said period. He shall be taken into custody forthwith but will be released after two weeks, to be taken into custody again if and when his remaining sentence stands activated." "47. The Contempt Petitions are disposed of accordingly."
(3.) Taking cognizance of the reference dated 27.08.2012 this Court passed a detailed order on 03.10.2013.;