Ravindra Singh, J. - (1.) -This reference has come before this Court for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against Ferrum s/o Muratdhwaj, Ram Moorat, Lekhpal alias Krishna Murat sons of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar Muratdhwaj Ram Balak and Makardhwaj son of Ram Pratap r/o village Pathra Mani, Bindeshwari son of Ram Sujan r/o Bachran and Manoj son of Ram Prasad r/o Parsauiya, P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot on the basis of the report dated 14.12.2004 sent by Sri Ram Krishna Shukla. Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) 1st Chitrakoot (hereinafter referred as presiding officer) forwarded by Sri Rajesh Chand, learned District and Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot to the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad.
(2.) THE report dated 14.12.2004 sent by Presiding Officer reads as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The Section Officer concerned submitted a note dated 13.4.2005 to O.S.D. (Contempt) thereafter on the basis of the aforesaid report. Incharge O.S.D. (Computer) submitted the note dated 20.4.2005 which reads as under : "Registrar General The present applicant for initiating the contempt proceedings against Ferrum, s/o Muratdhwaj, Ram Murat, Lekhpal alias Krishna Murat, sons of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar, Muratdwaj, Ram Balak, Makradhwaj, son of Ram Pratap, r/o Village Pathramani Vindheshwari, s/o Ram Sujan r/o Bachhran, and Manoj s/o Ram Prasad, R/o Faroja, P.S. Pahadi, district Chitrakoot by Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court 1st, Chitrakoot." The brief facts of the case is that on 9.12.2004, the Court pronounced the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 107/2003 Crime No. 22/2003 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C. P.S. Pahadi district Chitrakoot convicting the accused persons. Thereafter the Court took up S.T. No. 225/2004, State v. Husan and started to record the statement of the witness Constable Jagdish Chandra. In the meantime while the convicted accused were being brought outside of the Court by the police, accused Raj Kumar and Makardhwaj started abusing the Presiding Officer. The other accused persons Ferrum s/o Muratdhwaj, Ram Murat, Lekhpal alias Krishna Murat, sons of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar, Muratdhwaj, Ram Balak, Makardhwaj, son of Ram Pratap, r/o Village Pathramani, Vindheshwari, s/o Ram Sujan r/o Bachhran, and Manoj, s/o Ram Prasad, r/o Faroja, P.S. Ferrum, s/o Muratdhwaj, Ram Murat, Lekhpal alias Kishna Murat, sons of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar, Muratdhwaj, Ram Balak, Makrdhwaj, sons of Ram Pratap, r/o Village Pathramani, Vindeshwari, s/o Ram Sujan r/o Bachhran, and Manoj s/o Ram Prasad, r/o Farzoja, P.S. Pahadi also started to abuse the Presiding Officer from the outside of the Court. It is alleged that at the time of the occurrence the Reader Sri Ram Krishna Srivastava, senior advocate Sri Chandra Shekar Singh, the witnesses Sri Jagdish Singh, P.S. Manikpur, Court Ardali Sri Brij Mohan Pandey and Sri Ravindra Kumar Pandey, Sessions Clerk Sri Atvaru Prajapati and Sri Atul Kumar were present. "Criminal Contempt is defined under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, which reads as follows : (c) "Criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which : (i) scandalize or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court ; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings ; or (iii) interfere or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner ; Under Section 10 of the above Act, only the High Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance in respect of Contempt of Courts, subordinate to it. Section 20 of the Act provides one year, from the date of which contempt is alleged to have been committed as period of limitation, which in present case would expire on 9.12.2005. From the perusal of above provisions it is certain that above alleged actions of Sri Ferrum, s/o Muratdhwaj, Ram Murat, Lekhpal alias Krishna Murat, sons of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar, Muratdhwaj, Ram Balak, Makardhwaj, son of Ram Pratap, r/o Village Pathramani, Vindheshwari, s/o Ram Sujan r/o Bachhran, and Manoj, s/o Ram Prasad. r/o Farzoja, P.S. Pahadi is covered within the meaning of "Contempt of Court". Moreover the matter is not time barred and also cognizable by Hon'ble High Court only. May kindly place the file before the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for His Lordship's kind perusal and orders. Sd. Illegible (Mohd. Babar) I/C. O.S.D. (Computers) Dated 20.4.2005 Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. K. Misra Administrative Judge, Chitrakoot submitted for kind perusal and orders. Sd. Illegible 22.4.2005 Registrar General" A perusal of the above shows that the allegations are that of 9.12.2004 Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla pronounced the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 107 of 2003 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C. P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot convicting the accused contemnor Ferrum s/o Muratdhawaj, Ram Moorat, Lekhpal alias Krishna Murat sons of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar Muratdhwaj, Ram Balak and Makardhwaj sons of Ram Pratap r/o village Pathra Mani, Bindewhwari son of Ram Sujan r/o Bachhran and M?noj son of Ram Prasad r/o Parsaiya, P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot, who were present in the court. They were taken into judicial custody. Their custody warrants after conviction were under preparation. The Presiding Officer has taken up another case S.T. No. 225 of 2004, State v. Husan and started to record the statement of the witness Constable C.P. 307 Jagdish Chandra. In the meantime Court Moharrir alongwith some others Constable of the lock up came inside the court room to take the convict accused (Contemnors) for the lock up established in the Court compound. When seven convicted persons came out from the court room they were on its gate, the contemnor Raj Kumar, who was inside the court room made allegations against the Presiding Officer and the contemnor Makardhawaj who was also inside the court room hurled abuses to the Presiding Officer and then the contemnor Raj Kumar also hurled abuses and they also came out from the court room and again all the contemnors hurled abuses from outside the Court.
(3.) AFTER perusing the material, this Court issued notices to the contemnors on 19.9.2005. The contemnors appeared before this Court in person and filed applications alongwith their affidavits on 23.11.2005 mentioning therein unconditional apology before the Court in the event any spontaneous act of the applicants appears to be contemptuous and the Hon'ble Court came to the conclusion that there is any slightest contempt of the Hon'ble Court. After considering the reference and affidavits filed by the contemnors this Court has framed the charges against the contemnors on 19.12.2005 which read as under : The charge as against Ferrum is as under : "Dated 19.12.2005 Charge That you Ferrum son of Sri Muratdhwaj were accused in S.T. No. 107 of 2003, Case Crime No. 22 of 2003 under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149, I.P.C. P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot, You were convicted by Shri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1,Chitrakoot on 9.12.2004 and thereafter the Court took up S.T. No. 225 of 2004 State v. Husan and started to record the statement of constable Jagdish Chandra. That you Ferrum son of Sri Muratdhwaj immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1 Chitrakoot from outside the Court. By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. You Ferrum son of Sri Muratdhwaj are accordingly charged for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971." ;