JUDGMENT Amar Saran, J.
1. We have heard Sri V.C. Misra, learned Senior Advocate for the contemnors and learned AGA for the State.
2. A reference under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was sent by the District Judge, Saharanpur, vide his letter dated 21.2.2005 that during the course of a trial in ST No. 365 of 2001, which was being conducted by Sri Virendra Kumar, Addl. District and Sessions Judge/FTC No. 2, Saharanpur, two advocates, namely, Sri Nakshatra Pal Singh and Vijay Pal Singh, terrorized the witness and also made allegations against the Presiding Officer questioning his integrity in recording the evidence, and have thereby committed criminal contempt of the Court. Sri Virendra Kumar, ADJ/FTC No. 2 had stated in his complaint to the District Judge that during the course of the trial in ST No. 365 of 2001 when the evidence was being recorded on 10.2.2005, Sri Nakshatra Pal Singh, Advocate, assisted by Vijai Pal Singh, were representing the accused Sushi I and Kulvinder. In the examination-in-chief the witness PW 12 Brijesh Kumar had nominated only the accused Sushil and he had further stated that at the time of incident the police had come to the village and questioned him and he had made a disclosure about the incident. During the course of his cross-examination, PW 12, Brijesh Kumar, in response to a question by Sri Nakshatra Pal Singh, Advocate, as to whether the Daroga had recorded his "bayan", the witness had denied that the Daroga had recorded his statement. On the mere suggestion of the learned Judge that the witness may be asked whether he understood the meaning of the word "buyan" to a Darogha, the contemnors Nakshatra Pal Singh and Vijay Pal Singh started intimidating the witness Brijesh Kumar loudly and began denouncing the concerned Court for twisting the statements of the witnesses and being interested in the case. On the remark of the Court that if the Counsel chose, they could get the case transferred to some other Court, both the Counsel stormed out of the Court room. As a result, the cross-examination was held up and because of the loud threats issued by the Counsel to PW 12 Brijesh Kumar, and imputations against the impartiality and dedication of the Presiding Officer, a lot of persons, litigants, police witnesses and Court officials gathered in the Court room. In this manner, the contemnors are said to have interfered with the functioning of the Court and lowered its authority.
3. Thereafter, on the orders of the Administrative Judge dated 14.7.2005, before whom the file along with the comments of the District Judge and Registry were placed, the criminal contempt was referred to the Bench hearing criminal contempt matters. An order was passed on 11.8.2005 by a Division Bench issuing notice to the contemnors Nakshatra Pal Singh and Vijay Pal Singh, advocates, to show cause as to why proceedings for criminal contempt be not drawn against them for their alleged misbehaviour in the Court of Sri Virendra Kumar, Addl. District and Sessions Judge/FTC No. 2, Saharanpur, which prima facie amounted to interference in the administration of justice and tended to lower the authority of the Court.
4. A counter affidavit dated 29.9.2005 was thereafter filed on behalf of Nakshatra Pal Singh and Vijay Pal Singh, raising a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, bars congnizance by the High Court of a contempt of a subordinate Court where such contempt constituted an offence under the IPC, and it was argued that on the allegations prima facie an offence under Section 228 IPC was disclosed. A rejoinder affidavit to the said counter-affidavit was filed by the Presiding Officer.
5. By a detailed order dated 19.12.2005, after considering the decisions of the apex Court in Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras , State of MP v. Reva Shanker , Brahm Prakash v. State and Arun Paswan, SI v. State of Bihar 2004 (48) ACC 267, the said preliminary objection was over-ruled and an oral prayer made by Sri V.C. Misra, learned senior Counsel appearing for the contemnors, seeking permission to leave to appear before the apex Court was also refused on 19.12.2005 by a Division Bench consisting of Hon. Imtiyaz Murtaza and Hon. Ravindra Singh, JJ. as no substantial question of general importance was involved. It does not appear that any Appeal against the said order has been preferred before the Apex Court, because the contemnor's counsel has given no such indication.
6. As Sri V.C. Misra had prayed for filing a supplementary counter affidavit time was allowed and supplementary affidavits were filed by the contemnors on 24.8.2006 and thereafter certain dates were fixed for hearing on framing of charges.
7. Sri V.C. Misra has contended before us that the contemnors have committed no contempt as they were only fearlessly defending the interest of their client and the majesty of justice could not be upheld if mouths of the Counsel were to be sealed and that the contemnor Nakshatra Pal Singh has practiced as a highly respected advocate of the civil Court for 27 years and in any case he was tendering unqualified and unconditional apology. He had also contended that the contempt jurisdiction is being grossly misused and that whenever an attempt is made to impeach the integrity of a Court, it protects itself by clamping a contempt case against the alleged contemnor which can result in great harm in maintaining the purity of the legal system.
8. We are not in agreement with the aforesaid submission of Sri Misra and simply because an advocate has practiced before the Civil Court for 27 years, he is not given any licence to browbeat and bully the Court or the witness and to prevent the Court even from making innocuous observations in a case. In the instant case we find that as the witness, PW 12 Brijesh Kumar, had clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that he was questioned by the investigating Officer on his arrival in the village and had made disclosures before him. In his cross-examination to the question whether the investigating Officer had recorded his "bayan" the witness had replied in the negative, and on the mere suggestion of the Presiding Officer to the learned Counsel (the contemnor) to ask the witness whether he understood the meaning of the word "bayaii" the Court could not be accused of twisting the statement of the witness or of being interested in the case. Often witnesses understand the word 'bayan' to mean a statement on oath, and the witness's reply in the negative may have been result of his thinking that he had given no statement on oath before the I.O. At any rate this matter needed clarification from the witness, and thus there was no justification for the loud and aggressive outburst from Sri Nakshatrapal Singh against the witness, and for his unjustified and uncalled for imputations against the Presiding Officer. It may be noted that under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, a Judge has plenary powers to ask any question as he pleases in any form, at any time, from a witness about any relevant or irrelevant fact which may be enquired into and simply because the Presiding Officer instead of directly asking the witness to clarify whether he understood the meaning of the word 'bayan' in the circumstances asked the Counsel to seek this clarification it provided no ground to the contemnor to begin raising his voice against the witness and the Court and to make unwarranted imputations impeaching the fairness and integrity of the Court which drew a large number of litigants, police personnel and employees into the Court and which clearly obstructed further proceedings in the case.
9. We also think that the argument of Sri Mishra that the contempt jurisdiction is inevitably misused to shut the mouth of some person from questioning the integrity of the Court is wholly unjustified. Nothing whatsoever has been pointed out by Sri Mishra to raise even a cloud on the impartiality or integrity of the Presiding Judge. As a matter of fact recourse to the contempt jurisdiction is necessitated when advocates lose their balance and make all kinds of imputations and loudly raise their voices in an attempt to browbeat the courts and witnesses and when unfortunately their governing disciplinary body, viz. the Bar Council, stands as a silent spectator and fails to take any steps to discipline its erring members. In the earlier reported decision of the Division Bench consisting of Hon. Imtiyaz Murtuza and Hon. Ravindra Singh, JJ. (delivered by Ravindra Singh J.) dated 19.12.2005, reliance was rightly placed on the observations of the apex Court in Brahm Prakash v. State , that the contempt jurisdiction is not meant to afford protection to judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals but it is intended to be a protection to the public whose interest would be very much affected if by the conduct of any party if the authority of the Court was lowered and the sense of confidence which the people had in the administration of justice was weakened.
10. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the contemnors that the Presiding Officer was prejudiced against Nakshatra Pal Singh because he had earlier submitted an enquiry report to the District Judge on 18.9.2004 that Nakshatra Pal Singh had broken a lock of the main gate of the Court compound and had beaten a chowkidar Afzal, who was on duty on 24.8. 2000 at about 6 pm and (about which an FIR had even been lodged by the Chowkidar Afzal against the contemnor Nakshatra Pal Singh) also has no legs to stand. As observed by the Division Bench earlier in its order dated 19.12.2005 that the enquiry report against the contemnor Nakshatra Pal probably constituted the motive for the contemnor to have become annoyed with the Court and to have scandalized its authority, thereby interfering in the judicial proceedings and obstructing the administration of justice. In fact, the candid mention of this incident in the report submitted by the Presiding Officer also clearly shows the ingenuous and straightforward manner in which he has described the sequel of incidents as they actually occurred, and the suggestion to the Counsel to seek clarification from the witness as to whether he understood the meaning of the word "bayan" was made without any sense of prejudice and in an entirely bona fide manner.
11. Finally, the learned Counsel has contended that there is no role so far as the contemnor Vijay Pal Singh, who was a mere junior of Nakshatra Pal Singh was concerned, and he appears to have been roped in as a contemnor only because he was an assisting junior to Sri Nakshatra Pal Singh and had left the Court along with Nakshatra Pal Singh after the incident.
12. We find substance in the aforesaid contention. The earlier incident in which Nakshatra Pal Singh had broken the lock of the main gate in which the Presiding Officer Sri Virendra Kumar had submitted a report to the District Judge on 8.9.2004 only involved Nakshatra Pal Singh who appeared to be annoyed and prejudiced against the Presiding Officer and it was Nakshatra Pal Singh who was cross-examining the witness and to whom the suggestion had been made by the Court as to whether the witness understood the meaning of the word "bayan". No such allegation had been made against the other contemnor Vijay Pal Singh. Moreover, Vijay Pal Singh is a junior advocate and he could only be present with his senior and would not ordinarily be expected to open his mouth when his senior was addressing the Court. It is truly unfortunate that senior lawyers instead of teaching junior Counsel to put across their points showing deference to the Court often give them lessons in being rude and offensive with the Court and resorting to aggressive behaviour which is really the negation of good and fair advocacy, and which threatens to disrupt the smooth functioning of our judicial system. However in view of the apology submitted by Vijay Pal Singh and the fact that at worst he could simply be said to be following the wrong example set by his senior, Nakshatra Pal Singh, we think the ends of justice would be met if the notice issued to this contemnor Vijay Pal Singh is discharged, which accordingly we do.
13. The contemnor Nakshatra Pal Singh, however, shall appear in the Court on 9.1.2007 for framing charges against him.
14. List the case on 9.1.2007.