- (1.) IN this criminal miscellaneous petition, the judgment dated 3rd July, 2007 passed in Cont. (Cr.) Case No. 8 of 2006 by the Full Bench consisting of five Judges, has been sought to be reviewed/set aside by the contemner lawyer under the power enshrined under article 215 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE grounds for seeking review are as follows :- (i) The contemner had not been heard at all either on merit of the contempt application or not on the merit of his application filed on 12th March, 2007. (ii) No charge was framed in the contempt proceeding which should have been served on the contemner lawyer and, thereafter, the charge should have been tried/heard before delivering the judgment. (iii) The contemner lawyer had 'anticipated mala fide attitude of the Judges' of the larger Bench, which stood affirmed. Apprehending mala fide attitude of the judges, he had sent a complaint dated 10th april, 2007 to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of india, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. N. Agarwal, judge, Supreme Court, and other constitutional authorities before delivery of the Impugned judgment dated 3rd July, 2007. (iv) The part of the impugned judgment which prohibits the appearance of the contemner lawyer before this Court as well as in the Courts under its jurisdiction, is not only illegal but unconstitutional and is violative of Article 19 (g) read with Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India.
(3.) MR. K. K. Jha 'kama' appearing in person, submitted that the said grounds constitute errors apparent on the face of the record.;