Ravindra Singh, J. - (1.) THIS reference has come to initiate the proceeding of Criminal Contempt against the contemnor Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate (Registration No. U. P. 5011 of 1992) civil court, Mainpuri, on the basis of the report dated 8.10.2004 of Sri S. C. Savita. C.J.M., Mainpuri, made to the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad through the District Judge, Mainpuri. The report dated 8.10.2004 of Sri S. C. Savita, C.J.M., Mainpuri reads as under : "From, The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri. To, The Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Through The District Judge, Mainpuri. No. Dated : October, 2004 Subject : Motion for Contempt of Court against Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate, (Registration No. 5011/92) Sir, Humbly, it is submitted that on 25.9.2004, in the afternoon at about 1.10 p.m. when the undersigned was hearing arguments in Criminal Case No. 3926 of 1998, State v. Devesh Kumar and others, P.S. Kotwali, Mainpuri, Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate appeared and causing obstruction in the court proceedings, asked for immediate disposal of his application purporting to have been moved under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. He was advised to wait for a short while and that after argument in the above is concluded, all the miscellaneous applications, including his own application, would be put up by the clerk concerned for hearing and orders. But Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate insisted for disposal of his application then and there, and when advised to wait and keep quiet in the meanwhile, he became much angry and started shouting uttering uncalled for words. The utterance as could be heard by me were reduced in writing in the order sheet of the aforesaid criminal case. Part of those utterance is reproduced below : "Maine tere tatha tere tamam magistrate ki prati likhit shikayaten ki hain, tere zila judge ki bhi shikayat ki hai, tera zila judge mere shikayat per ghar baith gaya hai, too is liya mera yah prathana patra nistarit nahin kar raha hai, saale, nauaa teri aukat nahin hai, too mera prathana patra jan bujhkar take up nahi kar raha hai." The entire words which he spoke were reduced in writing in the order sheet of the aforesaid criminal case and a copy of the same is being enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-1. At the time of incident, Sri Dalvir Singh Yadav, Sri Deepak Dixit, Sri Mohd. Ahmad Hussain, Sri Rakesh Soti, Sri Rajesh Yadav, Sri Jag Mohan Dwivedi, Sri Sageer Ahmad, advocates and amongst the court-staff Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, Reader Shyam Babu Clerk, Sri Meghnath and Sri Ram Singh, orderly/Peons, A.P.O. S. K. Singh Yadav, Court Moharrir, Constable Bani Singh and Constable Santosh were also present. Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan advocate, outraging dignity and decorum of the Court, created not only nuisance but also terror and fear in the minds of the staff as well as litigants present there. He committed misconduct by hurling filthy language and using abusive words like, "saale" and "naua" (Caste name) etc. He virtually attempted to scandalize by hurling abuses and extending threats in such a loud voice that some litigants, lawyers and even P.A.C. personnel had also arrived inside and near the court room. He not only created terror, havoc and nuisance inside the court room but also, when he was taken out of the court room by two young lawyers, shouted slogans and threatened to harm me also by making complaints to the Hon'ble High Court as well as to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The above nuisance and terror was created and hooliganism was done by the aforesaid advocate, because he wants to create fear in the minds of the judicial officers and the staff and also to put pressure on them to act as per his convenience and to pass orders and judgments in his favour whenever he demands for it. THIS type of practice he has been doing since long. I may further submit that every person, may be an official, a judicial officer or lawyer and even police personnel, is adversely affected by his unruly behaviours and misconduct. The Mainpuri Bar Association passed a resolution on 27.9.2004 (the following working day, 26.9.2004 being Sunday) and thereby condemned the misconduct of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate, A copy of the resolution dated 27.9.2004 at Mainpuri Bar Association is enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-2. The brother officer were also shocked and hurt when they heard the above incident and they also passed a resolution on 27.9.2004, condemning the above unwarranted and unruly conduct of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate. A copy of the resolution passed by the judicial Officer of Mainpuri Judgeship is also enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-3. I may also submit that Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate, was an accused in Criminal Case No. 334 of 2002 (Crime No. 139 of 1989) State v. Chandra Prakash Singh under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 452, I.P.C. P.S. Dannahar, district Mainpuri and in which 26.9.2002, was a date fixed when Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate came in that court room and demanded, from the Reader, the file of that case for perusal. The file was handed over to him by the Reader. But while perusing that file, he managed to hand over the same to some of his men and after a few minutes when the Reader demanded that file back, he not only refused to return the file but also said that no file was given to him. On the report of the Reader, the then District Judge had directed that a criminal case be got registered against Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate. Accordingly, a criminal case at Crime No. 1437 of 2002 P.S. Kotwali, Mainpuri under Sections 406, 379 and 201, I.P.C. was got registered and after investigation charge-sheet under Sections 380 and 406, I.P.C. was submitted against him. The bail application of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate in that case was rejected by the Magistrate concerned and thereafter also by the then Sessions Judge on 4.10.2002. A copy of the bail order passed by the then Sessions Judge is also enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-4. A perusal of this bail order and also the charge-sheet submitted in the said case reveals that Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate has a criminal history and background. It also comes out that he had picked the pocket of a client in this very campus of this Judgeship and was apprehended on the spot by advocate, was taken to the Bar Association, where he was beaten and the money was recovered from his possession. Seven criminal cases were pending against him as noted in the charge-sheet and also in the said order dated 4.10.2002 (Annexure-4). Due to his misconduct, he was expelled from the Mainpuri Bar Association as is also clear from the resolution of Mainpuri Bar Association dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure-3). I may further submit that the misbehaviour of the above advocate was so daring, abnormal and indecorous that the same was also published in the newspaper in the next morning, i.e., on 26.9.2004. A photostat copy of the press report published in Dainik Jagran, Mainpuri, on 26.9.2004 is also enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-5. I may also submit that last year in the month of May, sixteen lawyers of this district had committed gross misconduct in the court room of the then District Judge. On submission of report by the District Judge to the Hon'ble High Court, contempt proceedings were drawn against those sixteen lawyers, who tendered unconditional apology which was accepted by the Hon'ble Court and they were severely warned for future and it was further directed that their conduct shall be under supervision of the District Judge, Mainpuri for a period of two years. The Hon'ble Court had also directed that in case they commit any act against the dignity of the Court, necessary action shall be taken against them. A copy of the order dated 24.7.2003 of the Hon'ble High Court is enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-6. The name of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan. advocate is not included in those 16 lawyers but his gross misconduct and a long criminal activities as submitted above go to establish that he is in the habit of terrorizing the court staff and also the judicial officer through his intentional and violent activities as already submitted above. Sir, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court, 2003 (46) ACC 568 : 2003 (2) ACR 1001 (SC) and the Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court, in its Criminal Contempt Case No. 25 of 1999, 2003 (46) ACC 546 : 2003 (1) ACR 433 (FB). In re Sri Shitla Prasad Misra and 223 others advocates, have condemned such type of hooliganism of the advocate, within the precincts of any judgeship in U. P. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be moved to approve taking of motion against the said lawyer Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan. Yours Faithfully, Sd. Illegible 8.10.2004 (S. C. Savita) C.J.M., Mainpuri. Encls : As above. Copy submitted to the P.S. to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Tiwari, Hon'ble The Administrative Judge of Mainpuri Judgeship, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, for placing the same before His Lordship for kind approval at His Lordship's convenience. Sd. Illegible 8.10.2004 (S. C. Savita) C.J.M., Mainpuri. Mainpuri Judgeship No. 1255/1 dated 12.10.2004 Forwarded. Sd. Illegible (Ram Kishore) District Judge, Mainpuri."
(2.) ON the basis of the aforesaid report of Sri S. C. Savita, C.J.M., Mainpuri, forwarded by the District Judge, Mainpuri on 12.10.2004, the Section Officer Contempt submitted a note dated 30.10.2004 which read as under : "O.S.D. (Contempt) May kindly see endorsement letter No. 1255/1, dated 12.10.2004 of the District Judge, Mainpuri forwarding therewith letter dated 8.10.2004 of Sri S. C. Savita, C.J.M., Mainpuri, about initiating contempt proceedings against Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate, Mainpuri. The Hon'ble Administrative Judge, Mainpuri has been pleased to make endorsement on the margin of the letter preferred to above as under : "R.G. For necessary action." The officer Sri S.C. Savita in his letter dated 8.10.2004 above has stated that on 25.9.2004 while he was hearing arguments in Criminal Case No. 3926 of 1998, State v. Devesh Kumar and others, Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate appeared and caused obstruction in the Court proceedings saying that immediate disposal of his application purporting to have been moved under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. be done. ON this he was advised to wait for a short-while and that after argument in the above case is concluded. But Sri Chandran Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate insisted for disposal of hi? application then and there when he was again advised to wait and keep quiet in the meanwhile, he became annoyed and started shouting uncalled for words. He further says that the utterances as could be heard by him were reduced in writing in the order sheet of the aforesaid criminal case. Part of those utterance is reproduced by him are as under : "Maine tere tatha tere tamam Magistrate ki prati likhit shikayaten ki hain, tere zila judge ki bhi shikayat ki hai, tera zila judge mere shikayat per ghar baith gaya hai, too is liya mera yah prathana patra nistarit nahin kar raha hai, saale, nauaa teri aukat nahin hai, too mera prathana patra jan bujhkar take up nahi kar raha hai." The officer has further stated that at the time of incident, a number of advocates, litigants and some staff were present there. The officer also states that Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan advocate, outraging dignity and decorum of the Court, created not only nuisance but also terror and fear in the minds of the staff as well as litigants present there. As such he committed misconduct by hurling filthy language and using abusive words like. "saale" and "nauaa" (Caste name) etc. virtually attempted to scandalize by hurling abuses and extending threats in such a loud voice that some litigants, lawyers and even P.A.C. personnel had also arrived inside and near the court room. He not only created terror, havoc and nuisance inside the court room but also when he was taken out of the court room by two young lawyers, shouted slogans and threatened to harm me also by making complaints to the Hon'ble High Court as well as to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been further stated the above nuisance and terror was created and hooliganism was done by the aforesaid advocate as he wanted to create fear in the minds of the judicial officers and the staff and also to put pressure on them to act as per his convenience and to pass orders and judgments in his favour whenever he demands for it. This type of practice he has been doing since long. The officer also mentions that the Mainpuri Bar Association passed resolution whereby condemned the misconduct of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate. The brother officer were also shocked and hurt when they heard the above incident and they also passed a resolution on 27.9.2004, condemning the above unwarranted and unruly conduct of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate. The officer has also submitted that Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, was an accused in Crl. Case No. 334 of 2002 (Crime No. 139 of 1989) State v. Chandra Prakash Singh, pending in the Court of J.M.I., Mainpuri came to the said court on hearing day and demanded the file of that case for perusal and while perusing the same he handed over the file to one of his men. ON making demand of the said file he not only refused to return but also told that no such file was given to him. Thereafter on report of the Reader a criminal case was got registered against Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate. And after investigation charge-sheet was filed and later on the bail applications of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan were rejected by the Magistrate concerned and also Sessions Judge. The officer mentions that a perusal of the bail order and also the charge-sheet reveals that he (advocate) has a criminal history and background. He even once picked the pocket of a client in the court's campus and presently seven criminal cases are pending against him as per the charge-sheet. Due to his misconduct, he was expelled from the Mainpuri Bar Association. The misbehaviour of the above advocate was so daring, abnormal and indecorous that the same was also published in the newspaper in the next morning, i.e., on 26.9.2004. It has also been submitted by the officer that last year sixteen lawyers of Mainpuri judgeship had committed gross misconduct in the court room of the then District Judge and contempt proceedings were drawn against them. Thereafter they had to tender unconditional apology before the Hon'ble Court and they were severely warned for fu?ure and it was further directed that their conduct shall be under supervision of the District Judge, Mainpuri for a period of two years and if they commit any act against the dignity of the Court, necessary action shall be taken against them. However, as per the letter the name of Sri Chauhan, advocate was not included in those 16 lawyers but his gross misconduct and a long criminal activities establishes that he is in the habit of terrorising the court staff and also the judicial officer through his intentional and violent activities. Request has been made for taking of motion against the aforesaid lawyer Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate. In this connection it may be submitted that provisions as contained in Section 2 (c) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, which is relevant to mention here is as under : 2 (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) scandalise or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court ; or (ii) prejudice, or interferes or tends to interfere with 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 ; Submitted for kind perusal and orders. Sd. Illegible 30.10.2004" After the note dated 30.10.2004 submitted by Section Officer concerned the matter was placed before the Registrar General, High Court Allahabad by in-charge O.S.D. (Computer) on 2.11.2004. Thereafter the Registrar General placed the matter before the Hon'ble the Administrative Judge. The note dated 2.11.2004 reads as under : "Registrar General This present application for initiating the contempt proceedings against Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, advocate, has been moved by Sri S. C. Savita, C.J.M., Mainpuri. It is alleged that the officer Sri S. C. Savita was hearing arguments in Criminal Case No. 3926 of 1998, State v. Devesh Kumar and others on 25.9.2004. In the meantime Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate appeared in the Court and caused obstruction in the proceedings saying that his application under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. be heard first. The Presiding Officer tried to cool down the alleged contemner, but Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan insisted for disposal of his application then and there. The Presiding Officer advised him to wait, but he became much annoyed and started shouting. Part of those utterance has been reproduced by him as under : "Maine tere tatha tere tamam Magistrate ki prati likhit shikayaten ki hain, tere zila judge ki bhi shikayat ki hai, tera zila judge mere shikayat per ghar baith gaya hai, too is liya mera yah prathana patra nistarit nahin kar raha hai, saale, nauaa teri aukat nahin hai, too mera prathana patra jan bujhkar take up nahi kar raha hai." (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 : (iv) scandalize or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court ; or (v) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings ; or (vi) 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 25.9.2005. From the perusal of above provisions it is certain that above alleged actions of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate 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) O.S.D. (Computers) 2.11.2004" The Hon'ble Administrative Judge examined the matter and passed the forwarding note which read as under : "Registrar General During my last visit to Mainpuri in October, 2004, I was informed by officers and staff members of the judgeship that Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate is habitual in outraging the dignity and decorum of Court. He not only creates nuisance but also terrorize the staff members and litigants. Therefore, in my opinion, stringent action against such an advocate is need of the hour. Since High Court has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of contempt of its subordinate courts, necessary criminal contempt proceedings be drawn against Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan on the basis of allegations contained in the application of Sri S.C. Savita, C.J.M. Mainpuri. Sd. Illegible (Justice Rakesh Tiwari) Administrative Judge, Mainpuri."
(3.) THEREAFTER the matter was placed before the acting Chief Justice who ordered that the matter be laid before the appropriate Bench. THEREAFTER the matter was placed before the appropriate Bench of this Court who passed the following order : "Hon'ble S. R. Alam, J. Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J. Issue notice to Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate (Registration No. 501/92) Civil Court, Mainpuri to show cause as to why a proceedings for criminal contempt be not initiated against him. Rule is made returnable within six weeks. 22.12.2004 SkS 23/04" The contemnor Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate received notice sent by this Court and filed an affidavit in the Court on 4.8.2005 in reply of the allegations made against him in the reference of this case stating in its paragraph 3 that since the contemnor was making repeated complaints to Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court against the C.J.M., perhaps the real happening was concealed and a concocted version has been brought out. It has been mentioned in paragraph 5 of this affidavit that the filthy words put in the mouth of the contemnor never uttered by him. He was merely complaining that the misbehaviour was done with him. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit it has been stated by the contemnor that so far as the resolution passed by the Mainpuri Bar Association is concerned, it may be stated that the resolution appears to be almost a dictated resolution. So far as the resolution passed by the brother judicial officer is concerned, it is only a resolution that matter may be referred to the Hon'ble the High Court for taking action against the contemnor. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit it has been stated by the contemnor that so far as the case noted in the order by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, are concerned it may be stated that almost all the cases are pending for long and are not proceedings while the contemnor wants and making efforts that they may be proceeded so that he may prove himself to be innocent and it is stated in paragraph 14 of the affidavit that, however, it may be said that the alleged contemnor had never any intention to commit the contempt of court. He has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive and in paragraph 15 of the affidavit it is stated that, however, the contemnor is judicially discipline advocate and since there was no intention to commit any contempt if this Hon'ble Court reaches to a conclusion that the contemnor is guilty of contempt, the contemnor tenders unqualified apology with folded hand that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept the unconditional apology and exonerate the humble advocate and the alleged contemnor. The contemnor has taken the plea of denial and before giving reply to the allegations made against him he stated certain facts in paragraph 2 of his affidavit. Paragraph 2 of the affidavit reads as under : "That before giving reply certain facts may be stated as unjer : (i) That the contemner aforesaid had made an application in Case No. 3221 of 2004, State v. Dhunchi under Sections 452 and 323, I.P.C. P.S. Dannahar, district Mainpuri asking a question as to whether the papers relating to bail were on record or not. Several documents in the file were missing due to the irresponsibility of the Court clerk Radhey Shyam Yadav. The contemner was the complainant in the aforesaid case. The office of the Court gave a false report that the case was pending. This reply had nothing to do with the question asked. Photostat copy of the application for information with reply dated 23.9.2004, is being annexed herewith and Annexure-C.A. 1 to this counter-affidavit. (ii) That the contemner made an application on 25.9.2004 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, that the record is not traceable and therefore, Court may be pleased to pass an order for lodging an F.I.R. in this respect. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, heard the matter and told that orders shall be passed after some time. The contemner thereafter was called in chamber by the Chief Judicial Magistrate where the contemner was maltreated, slapped on his face, abused him on the pretext that he had made the complaint against Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri to Hon'ble The High Court and Hon'ble The Supreme Court both and that nobody can do anything against him. The contemner had to bear with it. (iii) That the contemner then went to the Telegraph office made an application and informed of the fact to this Hon'ble Court and Apex Court. True copy of the said application dated 25.9.2004 is being annexed herewith as Annexure-C.A. II to this counter-affidavit. (iv) That later on the matter was transferred to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate I. It was then transferred to court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, II passed the order that since no cognizable offence was made out if the record of the case is not traceable therefore the application was dismissed. True copy of the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Mainpuri is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-C.A. III. (v) That it may be stated that if the things as stated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate had happened in his court he could have taken the action immediately and would not waited till 16.10.2004, i.e., about 20 days thereafter to make the present complaint. (vi) That the narration of facts sent for enquiry by the contemnor annexed as Annexure-C.A. II to this counter-affidavit would be more reliable. (vii) That in Criminal Case No. 1437/2002 the charge-sheet was missing for last about 12 years. When the contemner made the complaint, matter was enquired into and one Anil Saxena was held guilty. True copy of the order passed in Preliminary Enquiry No. 26/200 dated 19.7.2001 is being annexed herewith as Annexure-C.A. IV to this counter-affidavit. (viii) That since even other documents than the charge-sheet were missing, therefore contemner was accused in that case made an application for discharge. The contemner was trying to trace out the missing papers in the file, so he was to make further complaints but to avoid such a complaint as F.I.R. was lodged to the effect that the contemner took away the file. The matter are still pending. The contemner was sent to jail. The Bail application was dismissed by the Magistrate. However, learned Sessions Judge, allowed it. True copy of the complaint made by Mahabir Prasad dated 26.9.2002 is being annexed herewith as Annexure-C.A. V to this counter-affidavit. (ix) That on 27.9.2004 the contemner sent application to Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court in which he had stated that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was threatening that the contemner should take his complaint back otherwise he shall be proceeded with contempt in this Hon'ble Court. True copy of the complaint dated 27.9.2004 to Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure-C.A. VI to this counter-affidavit. Similarjy on 27.9.2004 the application was made to Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Hon'ble High Court. True copy of the application dated 27.9.2004 is being annexed herewith as Annexure-C.A. VII to this counter-affidavit. (x) That the contemner had made several applications against office of Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding loss of records of several cases and has also criticized him on various other scores. This may be the reason for Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed against the contemner. (xi) That the case of Chandra Prakash v. Shiv Pratap, contemner made an application under Section 410, Cr. P.C. for transfer of the matter but the application was dismissed. However, the case was kept in court of Chief Judicial Magistrate itself. Thus, it appears that the case was withdrawn from Court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and is to be tried by Chief Judicial Magistrate. True copy of the order dated 22.7.2004 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-C.A. VIII to this counter-affidavit. (xii) That in Case No. 19/1998, Chandra Prakash v. Officials in Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, contemner made an application that the all bonds were forged and later on they have been misplaced and they were not available on record. The enquiry in this respect is pending for last three years. Thereafter contemner made an application under Section 156 (3) against the accused which was dismissed. True copy of the order dated 4.2.2004 is being annexed herewith as Annexure-C.A. IX to this counter-affidavit. The application against the sureties for prosecuting has been dismissed. True copy of the order dated 7.4.2004 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-C.A. X to this counter-affidavit. (xiii) That application No. 149/2003 was made by the contemner under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C., the application was posted for another date which was said to be for hearing but word hearing was scored of. Contemner made a complaint to the Sessions Judge that entire records were missing. The Sessions Judge set up an Enquiry No. 2/2004 which was merely kept pending. The contemner then made the complaint to this Hon'ble Court on 4.9.2004 on which the action was taken and charge was framed against three employees and the enquiry is pending with Additional Sessions Judge. True copy of the order dated 22.7.2003, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate is being annexed herewith as Annexure-C.A. XI to this counter-affidavit. True copy of the application made by contemner to this Hon'ble Court dated 4.9.2004 is being annexed herewith as Annexure-C.A. XII to this counter-affidavit. (xiv) That a Case No. 138/1989 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 342, I.P.C. P.S. Bewar is pending which has not been committed for a long time. Even the witnesses have died. It was clearly with ulterior motive. (xv) That V. S. Yadav, advocate is facing criminal case being Case No. 138/189 under various sections for a double murder. The charge-sheet has been filed in 1998. However, Chief Judicial Magistrate has not committed case to court of Sessions and is pending till date. (xvi) That V. S. Yadav, advocate is also an accused in Crime Case No. 319/2003 under Section 307, I.P.C. (xvii) That V. S. Yadav, advocate alongwith others is an accused in Crime Case Nos. 220/2003 and 221/2003 under Section 25/30 of Arms Act. (xviii) That the contemner had made complaints' against Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29.7.2004 and 12.8.2004 to this Hon'ble Court. True copies for complaint dated 29.7.2004 and 12.8.2004 are being annexed herewith as Annexures-C.A. XIII and C.A. XIV respectively to this counter-affidavit. Contemner had made complaints on 29.7.2004 and 31.7.2004 to Hon'ble Supreme Court. True copies of the complaints dated 29.7.2004 and 31.7.2004 are being annexed herewith as Annexures-C.A. XV and C.A. XVI respectively to this counter-affidavit. (xix) That the contemner wanted report of Senior Account Officer on 1.7.2004, in case of Chandra Prakash v. Concerned Court Employee, but the application was dismissed on the ground that the copy cannot be gjven being against Rule 263 of General Rules Civil. True copy of the order dated 1.7.2004 is being annexed herewith as Annexure-XVII to this counter-affidavit." ;