- (1.) IMTIYAZ Murtaza, J.-Heard Sri Bhagwati Prasad Srivastava, learned counsel for the contemnor and learned A.G.A.
(2.) THIS reference has come on the basis of a report dated 18.6.2003 of Sri Suresh Chandra Bharti, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Moth, Jhansi, made to the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad, through district Judge, Jhansi. The letter of Suresh Chandra Bharti, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moth, Jhansi, reads as follows : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... On the basis of the aforesaid report of Sri Suresh Chandra Bharti, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Moth, Jhansi, and the letter of the in-charge district Judge, Jhansi, the Joint Registrar (Contempt) submitted a note which reads as follows : "May kindly see letter No. 1159/XV, dated 14.7.2003, placed below from the District and Sessions Judge, Jhansi, furnishing therewith letter dated 18.6.2003 of Sri Suresh Chandra Bharti, Civil Judge (J.D.), Moth, Jhansi and letter dated 10.7.2003 of I/c Administrative Officer/ Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Jhansi about alleged criminal contempt committed by Sri Rameshwar Dayal Yadav, Adv. In the Court of Civil Judge, Moth, Jhansi on 18.6.2003. (Flag 'A', 'B') The District Judge, Jhansi has stated that Sri Suresh Chandra Bharti, Civil Judge (J.D.), Moth has made a reference pertaining to criminal contempt said to have been committed by-Sri Rameshwar Dayal Yadav, advocate, in his Court on 18.6.2003 when the judgment was pronounced by him in a Complaint Case No. 261 of 1993, Guman v. Daya Ram and others, under Sections 323/504/ 506, I.P.C. sentencing the three accused to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 506, I.P.C. He further reports that the officer concerned has reported that Sri Yadav was one of the counsel of the accused in this case and after listening the order of sentence, he used contemptuous language against the Court and due to this the proceedings of another Criminal Case No. 558 of 1998 ; State v. Jakir under Sections 279/337/ 338, I.P.C. has also interrupted in which the cross-examination was being conducted by the defence counsel Sri Ashok Kumar Khare, Adv. in presence of A.P.O. Sri R. N. Jatav. He also informs that as Sri Rameshwar Dayal Yadav, Adv. was shouting badly in the Court of the proceedings of the aforesaid case was stopped and the Presiding Officer had to retire to his chamber. But even thereafter Sri Dayal continued to utter undesirable language. This incident was also witnessed by the officials of the Court, namely Sri Ravindra Singh, Sri Uma Shanker, Sri Gopal Das and Sri Devendra Kumar. The District Judge further states that lastly it has also been reported that Sri Dayal, Adv. has also criminal tendency and is facing one trial before the Court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Jhansi. Sri Rameshwar Dayal is also facing a proceeding under Section 340 Code of Criminal Procedure, Criminal Misc. No. 16 of 2000, (Sudama Prasad v. Rameshwar Dayal Yadav) in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moth. The District Judge has further informed that in another case Criminal Misc. Case No. 59 of 1995, State v. Court Moharrir and others under Section 340, (Code of Criminal Procedure) also, notices have been issued against him. With these allegations the Presiding Officer has requested the Hon'ble Court to punish Sri Ramesh Daval Yadav, advocate after taking cognizance under the Contempt of Courts Act. The reference made by the Presiding Officer was got examined by the Officer in-charge. Administration of the Judgeship. The District Judge has furnished the original reference letter as also photo copy of the report of the officer in charge, Administration of the Court. Sri Suresh Chandra Bharti, Civil Judge (J.D.), Jhansi in his letter referred to above has stated that in Complaint Case No. 261/93, Guman v. Dayaram and others has passed orders sentencing the accused persons to one year imprisonment and immediately thereafter Sri Rameshwar Dayal Yadav, advocate entered into the Court room by using abusive language loudly and also uttered that how he dared to punish in his case. On it the officer has stated that if he (Sri Yadav) has any objection he can file appeal in the Court of District Judge. The officer has further stated that in these circumstances he could not do work further and had to retire to his chamber. As per his report the aforesaid advocate continued to speak loudly and as such he lowered the dignity of the Court and also caused the contempt of court. He has also informed that Sri Rameshwar Dayal, advocate is a man of criminal tendency and a case is pending in this regard. The officer has requested that necessary action be taken against Sri Rameshwar Dayal, advocate, under the Contempt of Courts and he be punished otherwise it would be very difficult to work in the Court of Moth by any Judicial Officer. Sri Surendra Vikrama Singh Rathor, I/c Administration/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act. Jhansi in his report has stated that as per the representation of Sri Suresh Chandra Bharti, the acts done by Sri Rameshwar Dayal, advocate in the Court room undoubtedly comes under the purview of Contempt of Court and has recommended that the matter be referred to the Hon'ble Court. In this connection it may be submitted that provisions as contained in Section 2 (c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is relevant to mention herein as under : 2 (c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by Words, Spoken or Written, or by signs, or by visible representations or otherwise) of any matter or the doing or any other act whatsoever which : (i) scandalizes 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 proceeding ; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner ; Submitted for kind perusal and orders."
(3.) A perusal of the above shows that allegations are that on 18.6.2003 when the judgment was pronounced by Sri Suresh Chandra Bharti, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moth, Jhansi in a Complaint Case No. 261 of 1993, Guman v. Dayaram and others, under Sections 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. sentencing the three accused to one year R.I. Sri Rameshwar Dayal Yadav, counsel of the accused, after listening the order of sentence used contemptuous language against the Court and due to this the proceedings of another Crl. Case No. 558 of 1998, State v. Zakir, was also interrupted in which the cross-examination was being conducted by the defence counsel Sri Ashok Kumar Khare, advocate, A.P.O. Sri R. N. Jatav, the proceedings of the aforesaid case was stopped and the Presiding Officer had to retire to his chamber. Sri Rameshwar Dayal is also facing proceedings under Section 340, Cr. P.C. In the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moth, Jhansi, Crl. Misc. Case No. 59 of 1995, State v. Court Moharrir and others, under Section 340, Cr. P.C. On 11.2.2005. the contemnor had filed an affidavit in which he had denied the allegations and stated therein that the reference case No. 16/2003 made by District and Sessions Judge, Jhansi to the High Court making false allegations against the deponent that on 18.3.2003 when conviction and sentence was pronounced by the learned Judicial Magistrate/Ci?il Judge, Moth, district Jhansi then the deponent used contemptuous and undesirable languages against the Court, there is no specific word as stated in the referring order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jhansi, that what was the 'word' used by the deponent and on this count alone no offence under the Criminal Contempt is made out against the deponent.;