JUDGMENT M. Katju, A.C.J. and Umeshwar Pandey, J.
1. This contempt matter has come to us on reference of the learned District Judge, Azamgarh dated 1.6.1996.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The incident in question took place on 18.3.1996 and some other subsequent date in the year 1996. We have carefully perused the record of the case.
4. The incident is more than eight years old and hence we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for us to now take action against the contemnors at this late stage. Contempt jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence even if contempt of Court has been committed, the Court is not bound hence even if contempt of Court has been committed, the Court is not bound to take contempt proceedings.
5. Although the incidents in question were highly improper on the part of the lawyers of Azamgarh however, in veiw of the fact that, it is a very old incident, and also because in paragraph 45 of the affidavit of Sri Kamlakar Singh, the president of Civil Court Bar Association, Azamgarh it is prayed that the contemnors be pardoned, we are not taking any action.
6. In the special circumstances of the case we discharge the contempt notice. However, we are with administering the severe warning to the lawyers that the will be dealt with an iron hand if they indulge in such kind of activities in future. This kind of misbehavior will not be tolerated.
7. Similar view was taken by a Full Bench of the Court in In Re: Shitla Prasad Mishra Advocate and Ors. 2003 (46) ACC 546.
8. With these observations, the contempt notice is discharged.
9. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Government Advocate free of charge within two days.