IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J. - (1.) THIS reference has come up before this Court for taking proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act on the basis of a report dated 27-10-1998 of Shri Suresh Chandra Jain, II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. The District Judge, Etawah forwarded the said report to this Court on 28-10-1998. The letter of Shri Suresh Chandra Jain, II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah reads as follows: (Matter in vernacular omitted......Ed.)
(2.) ON the basis of the aforesaid report, Joint Registrar (C and L) submitted a note which reads as under: "REGISTRAR Shri Suresh Chandra Jain, II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah has made this reference for initiating contempt proceedings under S. 15 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 aga - inst Sri Vishram Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate of Collectorate, Etawah. Reference has been made on two grounds. First it is said that on 22-8-98 Sri Vishram Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate on behalf of accused person was arguing in Criminal Case No. 991/94 State Versus Ram Naresh under S. 323/325/352/504 I.P/C. before the said court. During the course of cross examination Sri Raghuvanshi asked the questions in a loud voice by threatening the witness. He was asked to cross examine witness politely, but instead of following the advice of the Court Sri Raghuvanshi reached on the dias of the court and attempted to snatch papers of statement from the Presiding Officer and uttered abusive language as mentioned at portion marked 'A' in the office note dated 19-11-98. These words were recorded in the order sheet as well as in the statement. Show cause notice was issued to him under the provision of contempt of Court. But he did not submit any explanation despite the opportunity was granted to him. The reference has been moved on the second ground with regard to Criminal Case No. 204/91 State Versus Asharfi Lal and others under S.452/342/504/506 I.P.C., P.S. Bidhuna. Sri Raghuvanshi was the advocate on behalf of the accused person in that case also and was having well acquaintances with them (accused persons) as he appeared in the court of different dates on behalf of accused person. On 25-7-98 one Om Prakash S/o Sri Krishna Jatav in the fake name of Sri Ram Krishna S/o Asharfi Lal was got surrendered in the aforesaid case and sent to jail as Sri Ram Krishna was wanted in that case. On information of misdeed, an enquiry was made and it came to the knowledge of the court that the surrendered accused person was Sri Om Prakash instead of Sri Ram Krishna. Sri Vishram Singh Raghuvanshi was the advocate of accused Ram Krishna in the said case. The Presiding Officer has mentioned that Sri Raghuvanshi was the master brain for constructing fake process. On enquiry Sri Raghuvanshi has refuted about aforesaid fact while other circumstances indicated his involvement in the matter. Presiding Officer passed an order on 28-9-98 to take action against Sri Raghuvanshi by referring the matter to the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council. Sri Suresh Chandra Jain, II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has reported that committing fraud in the court came under the purview of criminal contempt on the light of decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases which are mentioned at portion marked 'B' in the office note dated 19-11-98. He had further mentioned the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court namely Supreme Court Bar Association Versus Union of India. A.I.R. 1998 Supreme Court 1895 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the proceedings under contempt of court and proceeding before Bar Council against professional misconduct of advocates are separate. Hence Sri Jain has also referred this matter for taking action against the advocate under provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. In this context S.2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act which defines criminal contempt is relevant to mention here. "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 of any other act whatsoever which - i) Scandalises 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." The act and conduct of Sri Vishram Singh Raghuvanshi which he committed on 22-8-98 and 25-7-98 have not only scandalized the court but also caused interference in the administration of justice and act committed on 22-8-98 further lowered down the authority of the court as he uttered abusive language against the court. Prima facie a case of criminal contempt is made out against Sri Vishram Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate. May kindly lay the file before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for his Lordship's kind perusal and orders. Sd/- Illegible (D.N. Agarwal) Joint Registrar (CandL) A persusal of the above shows that the allegations are that on 22-8-1998 the contemnor Sri Vishram Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate, was arguing in Criminal Case No. 991 of 1994 (State v.. Ram Naresh) and during the course of cross - examination he asked the questions in a loud voice by threatening the witness. He was asked to cross - examine the witness politely but instead of following the advice of the court Sri Raghuvanshi, the contemnor, reached at the dais of the court and attempted to snatch the papers of statements from the Presiding Officer and uttered abusive language that "Madarchod, Bahanchod, High Court Ko contempt refer Kara Tatha Isi Tarah Ki Asabhya Galiyan Dete Hue; Nyayalaya Kachh Se Bahar Nikal Gaye." These words were recorded in the ordersheet as well as in the statement. A show cause notice under the Contempt of Courts Act was issued to him but he did not submit any explanation despite having been given 3 days time in this regard.
(3.) THE seconal allegation against the contemnor is that he was appearing on behalf of accused persons in Crl. Case No. 204/91 (State v. Asharfi Lal and others) under S.452/342/504/506 I.P.C., P.S. Bid - huna. He was well acquainted with the accused persons as he appeared in the court on different dates on behalf of the accused. On 25-7-98 one Om Prakash son of Sri Krishna Jatav in the fake name of Sri Ram Krishna son of Asharfi Lal was got surrendered in the aforesaid case and sent to jail as Shri Krishna was wanted in that case. An enquiry was made and it came to the knowledge of the court that surrendered person was Om Prakash and not Shri Krishna. On enquiry Sri Raghuvanshi, contemnor, has refuted about aforesaid facts while the circumstances indicated his involvement in the matter. The Presiding Officer passed an order dated 28-9-98 to take action against Sri Raghuvanshi, contemnor. This court had framed following charges against the contemnor on 27-9-2004: "(1) On 22-8-98 you appeared on behalf of the accused in criminal Case No. 991 of 1994 State v.. Ram Naresh under S.323/325/352/504 I.P.C. before the Court of Sri Suresh Chandra Jain, II Addl. C.J.M., Etawah. During the course of cross - examination you asked questions in a loud voice threatening the witness. When you were asked to cross - examine the witness politely you reached to the dias of the court and attempted to snatch the papers of statement from the President Officer and uttered abusive language e.g. Madarchod, Bahanchod, High Court Ko contempt refer Kar. These words were recorded in the order - sheet as well as in the judgment. (2) That on 25-7-98 you got surrendered one Om Prakash s/o Sri Krishna Jatav in the fake name of Sri Ram Krishna s/o Asharfi Lal and the said Om Prakash was sent to jail instead of Sri Ram Krishna who was really to be surrendered. In this connection an inquiry was held and the Presiding Officer has mentioned that you were the master - brain for constructing the fake process. The Presiding Officer has passed an order on 28-9-98 to take action against you and has referred the matter to the U.P. Bar Council." ;