# Association v. State of Gujrat, reported

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1010
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-05-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Contempt No. 13 of 1999
- **Bench:** Imtiyaz Murtaza, Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/association-v-state-of-gujrat-reported-40710
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

(A) Contempt of Courts Act-Section 2 (c)
Criminal Contempt Definition-any act by
a person which would tend to interfere
with the administration of justice-which
lawer the authority of court , amounts
contempt of court.

Held: Para 13

In the case of Delhi Judicial Service
Association V. State of Gujrat, reported
in (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 406 the
Apex Court had held "The definition of
criminal contempt is wide enough to
include any act by a person which would
tend to interfere with the administration
of justice or which would lower the
authority of court. The public have a vital
stake
in
effective
and
orderly
administration of justice. The Court has
the duty of protecting the interest of the
community in the due administration of
justice and, so, it is entrusted with the
power to commit for contempt of court,
not to protect the dignity of the Court
against insult or injury, but, to protect
and vindicate the right of the public so
that the administration of justice is not
perverted,
prejudiced,
obstructed
or
interfered
with.
"It
is
a
mode
of
vindicating the majesty of law, in its
active manifestation, against obstruction
and outrage." (Frankfurter, J. in Offutt V.
U.S.)
The
object
and
purpose
of
punishing contempt for interference with
the administration of justice is not to
safeguard or protect the dignity of the
Judge or the Magistrate, but the purpose
is to preserve the authority of the courts
to ensure an ordered life in society."
Case law discussed:
1991 (4) SCC-406

(B) Contempt of Courts Act-Section 12Contempnor a practicing advocate-found
master brain for surrendering one Om
Prakash as an actual accused-abusing
the presiding judge during course of
proceeding-On simple suggestion to ask
question politely instead of loud and
threatening voice-Law does not permit a
lawyer the liberty of causing disrespect
to the court-the conduct of hurling
filthiest
abuses-held-lowered
the
authority
of
court-amounts
to
interference with due course of judicial
proceeding-charges
framed
in
September
2004-in
affidavit
dated
18.10.2005
denied
the
allegationsapology on belated stage-can not be a
weapon to purge the guilt punishment of
3 month simple imprisonment with fine
of Rs.2000/- awarded.

Held: Para 19

In the present case, we are of the firm
opinion that the apology tendered by the
contemnor is not at all bona fide or
genuine.
The
charges
were
framed
against
him
as
back
as
on
27th
September, 2004. In his first affidavit
dated 18th October, 2005 he denied the
allegations. In the second affidavit dated
24th November, 2005 he has made a
show of tendering apology. This apology
is coming forth after he scented that his
3 All] State of U.P. V. Vishram Singh Raghubanshi
1011
adventure
has
turned
to
be
misadventure. It is well settled principle
that apology is not a weapon to purge
the guilt of a contemnor. The apology
must
be
sought
at
the
earliest
opportunity. The apology tendered by
the contemnor is at a very belated stage
to
escape
the
punishment
for
the
grossest criminal contempt committed
by him. The apology so offered by him
cannot be allowed to be employed as a
device to escape the rigour of law.
Therefore, we do not accept the apology
of the contemnor. Instead, we allow the
reference
and
find
the
contemnor
Vishram Singh Raghubansi, Advocate to
be guilty of criminal contempt on both
the charges. We convict him accordingly
under Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act and sentence him to suffer
simple imprisonment for three months
and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default
of payment of fine, he shall suffer further
simple imprisonment of one month.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1988 SC-1395
1993 9i) SCC-529

## Text

1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Contempt No. 13 of 1999

State of U.P.

...Petitioner
Versus
Vishram Singh Raghubanshi, Advocate
District Court, Etawah ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Tripathi
Sri Bhagwat Prasad
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Vishnu Gupta
Sri R.O.V.S. Chauhan
Sri Rakesh Pandey
Sri Pankaj Lal

(A) Contempt of Courts Act-Section 2 (c)
Criminal Contempt Definition-any act by
a person which would tend to interfere
with the administration of justice-which
lawer the authority of court , amounts
contempt of court.

Held: Para 13

In the case of Delhi Judicial Service
Association V. State of Gujrat, reported
in (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 406 the
Apex Court had held "The definition of
criminal contempt is wide enough to
include any act by a person which would
tend to interfere with the administration
of justice or which would lower the
authority of court. The public have a vital
stake
in
effective
and
orderly
administration of justice. The Court has
the duty of protecting the interest of the
community in the due administration of
justice and, so, it is entrusted with the
power to commit for contempt of court,
not to protect the dignity of the Court
against insult or injury, but, to protect
and vindicate the right of the public so
that the administration of justice is not
perverted,
prejudiced,
obstructed
or
interfered
with.
"It
is
a
mode
of
vindicating the majesty of law, in its
active manifestation, against obstruction
and outrage." (Frankfurter, J. in Offutt V.
U.S.)
The
object
and
purpose
of
punishing contempt for interference with
the administration of justice is not to
safeguard or protect the dignity of the
Judge or the Magistrate, but the purpose
is to preserve the authority of the courts
to ensure an ordered life in society."
Case law discussed:
1991 (4) SCC-406

(B) Contempt of Courts Act-Section 12Contempnor a practicing advocate-found
master brain for surrendering one Om
Prakash as an actual accused-abusing
the presiding judge during course of
proceeding-On simple suggestion to ask
question politely instead of loud and
threatening voice-Law does not permit a
lawyer the liberty of causing disrespect
to the court-the conduct of hurling
filthiest
abuses-held-lowered
the
authority
of
court-amounts
to
interference with due course of judicial
proceeding-charges
framed
in
September
2004-in
affidavit
dated
18.10.2005
denied
the
allegationsapology on belated stage-can not be a
weapon to purge the guilt punishment of
3 month simple imprisonment with fine
of Rs.2000/- awarded.

Held: Para 19

In the present case, we are of the firm
opinion that the apology tendered by the
contemnor is not at all bona fide or
genuine.
The
charges
were
framed
against
him
as
back
as
on
27th
September, 2004. In his first affidavit
dated 18th October, 2005 he denied the
allegations. In the second affidavit dated
24th November, 2005 he has made a
show of tendering apology. This apology
is coming forth after he scented that his
3 All] State of U.P. V. Vishram Singh Raghubanshi
1011
adventure
has
turned
to
be
misadventure. It is well settled principle
that apology is not a weapon to purge
the guilt of a contemnor. The apology
must
be
sought
at
the
earliest
opportunity. The apology tendered by
the contemnor is at a very belated stage
to
escape
the
punishment
for
the
grossest criminal contempt committed
by him. The apology so offered by him
cannot be allowed to be employed as a
device to escape the rigour of law.
Therefore, we do not accept the apology
of the contemnor. Instead, we allow the
reference
and
find
the
contemnor
Vishram Singh Raghubansi, Advocate to
be guilty of criminal contempt on both
the charges. We convict him accordingly
under Section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act and sentence him to suffer
simple imprisonment for three months
and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default
of payment of fine, he shall suffer further
simple imprisonment of one month.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1988 SC-1395
1993 9i) SCC-529

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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:

izs"kd]

lqjs'k pUnz tSu]

f}rh; vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVasV]

bVkokA

lsok esa]

fucU/kd]

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;]

bykgkcknA

}kjk% tuin U;k;k/kh'k] bVkokA

fo"k;%& /kkjk 15 dUVSEiV vkQ dksVZ ,DV] 1971
vUrxZr Jh foJke flag j?kqoU'kh] ,MoksdsV dydVah
dpgjh] bVkok ds f[kykQ esjh U;k;ky; dh voekuuk
ds lEcU/k esa dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus gsrq jsQzsUlA

egksn;]

mijksDr fo"k; ij ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks lfou;
fuEu fuosnu fd;k tkrk gS%&

1- ;g fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk twu 1998
esa VakalQj }kjk eq>s f}rh; vij U;kf;d eftLVasV]
bVkok ds :i esa rSukr fd;k x;k] rFkk fnukad 8-6-98
ls eSa U;k;ky; f}rh; vij eq[; U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh]
bVkok ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds in ij dk;Zjr gw¡A

2-
fnukad 22-8-98 dks ,d QkStnkjh okn la[;k 991
lu~ 94 jkT; cuke jkeujs'k /kkjk 323@325@352@504
Hkk-na- lafgrk esa eqyfteku dh rjQ ls mDr vf/koDrk Jh
foJke flag j?kqoa'kh] ,MoksdsV U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj
ftjg dj jgs Fks] ftjg ds nkSjku mDr vf/koDrk us xokg
dks /kedkrs gq, vR;Ur tksj ls loky iwNuk 'kq: fd;kA mUgsa
le>k;k x;k fd og vf/koDrk ds O;olk; ds :i esa
'kkfUriwoZd xokg ls iz'u iwNsa] rks og U;k;ky; esa Mk;l ij
p<+dj c;ku ds dkxt dks eq>ls Nhuus dk iz;kl djus yxs
rFkk eq>s xkfy;ka nsus yxs fd] ^eknjpksn cgupksn* ] gkbZ
dksVZ dks dUVSEiV jSQj djA* rFkk blh rjg dh leH;
xkfy;ka nsrs gq, U;k;ky; d{k ls ckgj fudy x;sA ^budk
;g vkpj.k c;ku ds vUr esa uksV fd;k x;k rFkk vkns'ki=
esa Hkh mDr rF; dks vafdr fd;k x;kA c;ku dk uksV fd;k
Hkkx o vkns'ki= dh lR; izfrfyfi layXu la[;k&1 o 2 ds
:i esa layXu dh tkrh gSA mDr vf/koDrk dks rhu jkst esa
Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr djus dk volj fn;k x;k fd muds
f[kykQ dk;Zokgh D;ksa u dh tk;s] ysfdu mUgksaus dksbZ
Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr ugha fd;kA mDr ?kVuk vR;Ur xEHkhj gSA
,slh ?kVuk gksrs gq, U;kf;d iz'kklu ugha py ldrk gS] u
gh U;k;ky; dk;Z dj ldrh gSA
1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
3- 1⁄4v1⁄2
;g fd esjh U;k;ky; esa yfEcr ,d vU;
vR;Ur iqjkuk QkStnkjh okn la[;k 204 lu~ 91 jkT; cuke
v'kQhZ yky vkfn /kkjk 452@342@504@506 Hkk-n-
lafgrk Fkkuk fc/kwuk ls lEcfU/kr vkjksii= U;k;ky; esa
fnukad 10-7-1991 dks iathd`r fd;k x;k FkkA rc mDr
dsl 'kq: gqvk FkkA fjdkMZ ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS
fd bl dsl ls lEcfU/kr ?kVuk fnukad 26-3-91 dh gS]
rFkk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ oknh HkkbZn;ky us lkr eqyfteku
v'kQhZyky] ckcwyky] jked`".k jkeukFk] dyqvk] teknkj rFkk
jkeiky ds f[kykQ Fkkuk fc/kwuk esa iathd`r djkbZ FkhA
vkjksii= vkus ls iwoZ foospuk ds nkSjku lHkh eqyfteku dh
tekur Jh foJke flag] ,MoksdsV us djkbZ Fkh] rFkk buus
fofHkUu eqyfteku dh rjQ ls ekpZ rFkk vizSy 1991 esa
vius eheks vkQ ,sih;jsUl rFkk tekur izkFkZuki= nkf[ky
fd;s FksA fnukad 12-10-93 dks ikap eqyfteku v'kQhZyky]
jked`".k] teknkj] jkeiky ,oa jkeckcw mQZ ckcwyky ds
f[kykQ U;k;ky; }kjk vkjksi yxk;k x;kA fnukad 3-5-94
rFkk fnukad 20-9-94 dks ih- Mcyw&1 Hkksykflag dh vkaf'kd
lk}; vafdr dh xbZ] mlds ckn eqyfteku ds xSj gkftj gks
tkus ds dkj.k dsl dh dk;Zokgh vkxs ugha c< ldhA fjdkMZ
ls ;g Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd fnukad 12-3-97 dks mDr
vf/koDrk us mDr eqyfteku ds okjUV fujLr djus dk
izkFkZuki= fn;k] ftlij mDr eqyfteku dks U;kf;d vfHkj{kk
ea fy;k x;k] rFkk vkns'k fnukad 12-3-97 }kjk U;k;ky; us
lHkh eqyfteku ij :050&50 vFkZn.M djds okjUV fujLr
fd;k] rFkk muds uohu eqpyds U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky djk;s
x;sA :050@& vFkZn.M ij NksM+us dk mDr vkns'k eqyfte
jked`".k dh rjQ ls Jh foJke flag j?kqoa'kh] ,MoksdsV dh
rjQ ls fn;s x;s izkFkZuki= fnukad 12-3-97 ij ikfjr
fd;k x;kA Jh foJke flag j?kqoa'kh] ,MoksdsV mijksDr
eqyfteku dh rjQ ls 'kq: ls gh vf/koDrk ds :i esa
dk;Zjr jgs gSa] mijksDr rF;ksa ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd Jh
foJke flag j?kqoa'kh] ,MoksdsV vius eqofDdy eqyfteku dks
HkyhHkkafr tkurs o igpkurs Fks] D;ksafd muds gh lkFk muds
eqofDdy U;k;ky; esa vusd ckj mifLFkr gq,] fofHkUu
rkjh[kksa ij Jh foJke flag j?kqoa'kh] ,MoksdsV us O;fDrxr
gktjh eqyfteku dh vius ekQZr ekQ Hkh djkrs jgs gSa rFkk
mudh rjQ ls lkjh dk;Zokgh mDr vf/koDrk us U;k;ky; esa
dhA

1⁄4c1⁄2 fnukad 25-7-98 dks rhu eqyfteku jked`".k]
jkeckcw rFkk jkeiky us U;k;ky; esa vkReleZi.k fd;k] rFkk
xSj tekurh; okjUV fujLr djkus ds fy;s izkFkZuki= 57[k
fn;k] budh rjQ ls ;g izkFkZuki= buds mijksDr vf/koDrk
us U;k;ky; esa fn;k Fkk] rFkk mUgha us lkjh dk;Zokgh dh FkhA
mijksDr rhuksa eqyfteku esa nks eqyfteku jked`".k o jkeckcw
lxs HkkbZ gSa] rFkk v'kQhZyky ds iq= gSaA fnukad 30-7-98
dks budks tekur ij fjgk djus dk vkns'k Hkh ikfjr fd;k
x;k ysfdu buds okLrfod :i ls fjgk gksus ds iwoZ U;k;ky;
dh tkudkjh esa vk;k fd lgh eqyfte jked`".k iq=
v'kQhZyky ljs.Mj djkdj tsy fHktok fn;k x;kA ;g rF;
tsy x;s O;fDr vkseizdk'k dh ekrk Jherh dksfdyk nsoh
}kjk izkFkZuki= fnukad 1-8-98 nsus ij lkeus vk;k] ftldh
tkap dh xbZ rFkk tsy ls ryc fd;s tkus ij jked`".k ds
uke ls tsy esa x;s O;fDr us U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj
crk;k gS fd mldk uke vkseizdk'k iq= Jhd`".k tkVo gS]
rFkk oknh eqdnek HkkbZn;ky dks Hkh ryc fd;k x;k] ftlus
Hkh mDr rF; dks rlnhd fd;kA

1⁄4l1⁄2 eSaus mDr lEcU/k esa tkap Hkh dh rFkk Jh foJke flag
j?kqoa'kh] ,MoksdsV Jh v'kQhZyky vfHk;qDr rFkk mijksDr Jh
vkse izdk'k ds c;ku Hkh vafdr fd;sA vkseizdk'k us vius
c;ku esa dgk gS fd mlus vnkyr esa fdlh odhy dks viuk
uke jkefd'ku ugha crk;k FkkA v'kQhZyky us U;k;ky; esa
dkxt ij bldk fu'kku vaxwBk djk fy;k FkkA Jh
v'kQhZyky us vius c;ku esa dgk gS fd vkseizdk'k vyx
cl esa vk;k Fkk] blus Lo;a jkefd'ku cudj U;k;ky; esa
leZi.k fd;k rFkk blls tgka nLr[kr djus dks dgk x;k]
blus nLr[kr dj fn;sA buds c;ku fnukad 26-9-98 ls
Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd cxSj vf/koDrk }kjk lykg fn;s x;s
rFkk vf/koDrk dh iykfuax ds fcuk vkseizdk'k dk jkefd'ku
ds uke ls U;k;ky; eas leZi.k djuk lEHko ugha gS rFkk Jh
foJke flag j?kqoa'kh] ,MoksdsV dh fnekxh ;kstuk ds rgr gh
mijksDr QthZ dk;Zokgh U;k;ky; esa djkbZ xbZA Jh foJke
flag j?kqoa'kh] ,MoksdsV us vius c;ku fnukad 26-9-98 dks
mijksDr rF;ksa ls bUdkj fd;k gS] rFkk dgk gS fd v'kQhZyky
mijksDr O;fDr dks muds ikl yk;k Fkk rFkk ;g vf/koDrk
jkefd'ku dks igys ls ugha tkurs FksA mijksDr vf/koDrk dk
dFku lgh o fo'oluh; ugha gSA bl lEcU/k esa eSaus vkns'k
fnukad 28-9-1998 ikfjr fd;k ftlds vUrxZr mijksDr
vf/koDrk ds mDr vkpj.k ds lEcU/k esa mRrj izns'k ckj
dkmfUly dks lwfpr djuk mfpr ik;k x;kA

1⁄4n1⁄2 mDr rF;ksa ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd Jh foJke flag
j?kqoa'kh] ,MoksdsV us fnukad 25-7-1998 dks jked`".k iq=
v'kQhZyky ds uke ls QthZ O;fDr vkseizdk'k iq= jked`".k
tkVo dks ljs.Mj djkdj tsy fHktok;k] D;ksafd mUgsa ;g
HkyhHkkafr ekywe Fkk fd vkseizdk'k ds uke ls lj.Msj fd;k
tk jgk eqyfte jked`".k ugha gS] D;ksafd ;g vf/koDrk
jked`".k eqyfte dh rjQ ls 'kq: ls gh fu;qDr jgs gSa] rFkk
iSjoh djrs jgs gSa rFkk vius eqofDdy jked`".k dks HkyhHkkafr
tkurs FksA U;k;ky; esa jked`".k dh txg QthZ O;fDr
vkseizdk'k dks lj.Mj djkus dh ;kstuk 1⁄4Iykfuax1⁄2 rFkk dk;Z
mDr vf/koDrk ds fnekx dk "kM;U= gS] rFkk mudk ;g
dk;Z vR;Ur vkifRrtud rFkk fof/k O;olk; ds lHkh
3 All] State of U.P. V. Vishram Singh Raghubanshi
1013
vkpj.k o fl)kUrksa ds izfrdwy gS] ftlds lEcU/k esa buds
fo:) dk;Zokgh dh tkuh pkfg;sA

1⁄4;1⁄2 Jh foJke flag j?kqoa'kh] ,MoksdsV }kjk mijksDr
eqyfteku dh rjQ ls lu~ 1991 ls nkf[ky fd;s x;s
mijksDr lqlaxr fofHkUu eheks vkQ ,sih;jsUl 1⁄4ipkZirk1⁄2]
ljs.Mj o tekur ds izkFkZuki= fnukad 30-3-91] 3-4-91
vkjksii= fnukad 12-10-93 izkFkZuki= fnukad 12-3-93
izkFkZuki= fnukad 25-7-98] izkFkZuki= fnukad 1-8-98]
fnukad 26-9-98 dks Jh v'kQhZyky eqyfte] vkseizdk'k
rFkk Jh foJke flag j?kqoa'kh] ,MoksdsV ds vafdr fd;s x;s
c;kuksa dh lgh udysa] rFkk mijksDr vkns'k fnukad 28-998 dh Hkh lgh udy layXud&3 yxk;r layXud&20 ds
:i esa layXu dh tkrh gSA

1⁄4j1⁄2 U;k;ky; esa QthZ dk;Zokgh djuk fdzeuy dUVSEiV dh
lhek ds vUrZxr vkrk gSA /kuut; cuke LVsV vkQ
gfj;kuk] 1995] oksY;we&1] lqizhe dksVZ dslsl] 421]
pUnz'k'kh cuke vfuy dqekj 1995 ts-vkbZ-lh- ist 225
1⁄4lqizhe dksVZ1⁄2 rFkk 1996 ,-lh-lh- ist 225 1⁄4lqizhe dksVZ1⁄2
vkfn vusd uthjksa esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g
fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd U;k;ky; esa QthZ dk;Zokgh djuk
fdzeuy dUVSEiV curk gSA bl izdkj esajh U;k;ky; esa Jh
foJke flag j?kqoa'kh] ,MoksdsV }kjk QthZ O;fDr dks eqyfte
ds :i esa ljs.Mj djkdj tsy fHktokuk fdzeuy dUVSEiV gh
le>k tkuk gS] ftlds fy;s muds f[kykQ dk;Zokgh visf{kr
gSA

4-
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us lqizhe dksVZ ckj
,slksfl;s'ku cuke ;wfu;u vkQ bf.M;k] b-vkbZ-vkj- 1998
lqizhe dksVZ&1895 dh uohure uthj esa ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k
gS fd dUVSEiV vkQ dksVZ dh izfdz;k rFkk vf/koDrk ds
izksQS'kuy feldUMDV ds lEcU/k esa ckj dkmfUly ds le{k
izfdz;k vyx&vyx gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa dUVSEiV vkQ dksVZ
dh dk;Zokgh vyx pyuh gS] rFkk ckj dkmfUly ds le{k
buds izksQS'kuy feldUMDV ds fy;s vyx dk;Zokgh pyuh
gSA buds mijksDr dk;Z vR;Ur vkifRrtud rFkk fof/k
O;olk; ds izfrdwy gSaA

vr% /kkjk 15 dUVSEiV vkQ dksVZ ,DV 1971 ds
vUrZxr Jh foJke flag j?kqoa'kh] ,MoksdsV ds f[kykQ
dk;Zokgh dh tkus dh d`ik dh tk;sA

/kU;oknA
 Hkonh;]
1⁄4lqjs'k pUnz tSu1⁄2
fnukad 27-101998 f}rh; vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVasV]
 bVkokA

2. On the basis of the aforesaid
report, report, Joint Registrar (C & 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 u/s 15 of Contempt
of Court Act 1971 against 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 u/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 Vsrsus Asharfi Lal
and others u/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
1014 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
persons) as he appeared in the court of
different dated 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.

3. 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
aalso referred this matter for taking action
against the advocate under provisions of
Contempt of Court Act. In this context
section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court 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)
Scandalizes 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 (C & L)

4. A perusal 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 (State Vs. Ram
Naresh) and during the course of cross-
3 All] State of U.P. V. Vishram Singh Raghubanshi
1015
examination he asked the question 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
Nayayalaya Kachh Se Bahar Nikal
Gaye." These words were recorded in the
order sheet 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.

5. The second allegation against the
contemnor is that he was appearing on
behalf of accused persons in Crl. Case
No.204/91 (State Vs. Asharfi Lal and
others) under Sections 452/342/504/506
I.P.C. P.S. Bidhuna. 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
knowlede 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 Vs. Ram
Naresh
under
Sections
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
dais of the court and attempted to
snatch the papers of statement from
the Presiding 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."

6. Thereafter the case was adjourned
on several dates either on the request of
the counsel for the contemnor or on
account of his illness or the case could not
be taken up due to paucity of time. An
affidavit dated 18.10.05 was filed in reply
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
to the charges framed and in paragraph 11
it was stated that "in view of the facts and
circumstances stated above, the charge
no. 1 is categorically denied as based on
incorrect facts. The deponent did not use
any abusive language as stated in the
charge. The deponent would require
copies of the order-sheet as well as
records for a detail reply to he said
charges especially in order to enable the
deponent to get Ram Naresh accused in
criminal case no. 991 of 1994 summoned
for establishing as to whether narration in
the order-sheet/judgment regarding the
deponent having used abusive language
and having snatched the papers is correct
or false. It was further mentioned in
paragraph 12 that "charge no. 1 is based
on incorrect report which has been given
in retaliation to the complaint made by the
deponent against Shri Suresh Chandra
Jain, ACJM, IInd which fact is further
fortified by the averments made in the
preceding paragraph." In paragraph 13 of
the affidavit charge was categorically
denied and it was also stated that the "the
enquiry referred to in charge no. 2 was
unilateral and ex-parte enquiry, copy of
which has not been given to the deponent
till date and thus the deponent is not in a
position to make statement regarding the
said enquiry report".

7. Another affidavit dated 24.11.05
was filed by the contemnor. In paragraph
3 of this affidavit it was stated that the
"deponent
expresses
his
unqualified
remorse for the incident giving rise to the
present
conempt
application.
The
deponent
tenders
his
unconditional
apology to this Hon'ble Court and to Shri
Suresh Chandra Jain, the then A.C.J.M.-
2, Etawah for the entire incident without
any qualification or precondition. The
deponent gives a solemn undertaking that
no such incident would occur in future.
The deponent has immense respect for
this Hon'ble Court and all other courts of
law in the land." In paragraph 4 it was
stated that "deponent also expresses bona
fide, genuine and heartfelt regret for the
occurrence which the deponent considers
a blot on his professionalist."

8. We have heard Shri Bhagwati
Prasad, Advocate, and the learned A.G.A.
for the State.

9. We see no reason to disbelieve
the facts stated by Shri Suresh Chandra
Jain, II Addl. C.J.M., Etawah against the
contemnor and we are of the opinion that
the facts reported are correct. These facts
clearly prove that the contemnor V. S.
Rabhubansh is guilty of gross criminal
contempt.

10. In Ishwar Chand Jain Vs. High
Court of Punjab and Haryana (AIR)
1988 SC 1395 the Supreme Court
observed that."

11. Under the Constitution the High
Court has control over the subordinate
judiciary. While exercising that control it
is under a constitutional obligation to
guide and protect judicial officers. An
honest strict judicial officer is likely to
have adversaries in the mofussil courts. If
complaints are entertained on trifling
matters relating to judicial order which
may have been upheld by the High Court
on the judicial orders which may have
been upheld by the High Court on the
judicial side no judicial officer would feel
protected and it would be difficult for him
to discharge his duties in an honest and
independent manner. An independent and
honest judiciary is a sine qua non for rule
of law. If judicial officers are under
3 All] State of U.P. V. Vishram Singh Raghubanshi
1017
constant threat of complaint and enquiry
on trifling matters and if High Court
encourages anonymous complaints to
hold the filed the subordinate judiciary
will not be able to administer justice in an
independent and honest manner. It is
therefore imperative that the High Court
should also take steps to protect its honest
officers by ignoring ill-conceived or
motivated
complaints
made
by
the
unscrupulous lawyers and litigants.

12. Thus, it has been clearly laid
down by the Supreme Court that the
power
of
the
High
Court
of
superintendence and control over the
subordinate judiciary under Article 235 of
the Constitution includes within its ambit
the duty to protect members of the
subordinate judiciary.

13. In the case of Delhi Judicial
Service Association V. State of Gujrat,
reported in (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases
406 the Apex Court had held "The
definition of criminal contempt is wide
enough to include any act by a person
which would tend to interfere with the
administration of justice or which would
lower the authority of court. The public
have a vital stake in effective and orderly
administration of justice. The Court has
the duty of protecting the interest of the
community in the due administration of
justice and, so, it is entrusted with the
power to commit for contempt of court,
not to protect the dignity of the Court
against insult or injury, but, to protect and
vindicate the right of the public so that the
administration of justice is not perverted,
prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with.
"It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of
law, in its active manifestation, against
obstruction and outrage." (Frankfurter, J.
in Offutt V. U.S.) The object and purpose
of punishing contempt for interference
with the administration of justice is not to
safeguard or protect the dignity of the
Judge or the Magistrate, but the purpose is
to preserve the authority of the courts to
ensure an ordered life in society."

14. If the judiciary has to perform its
function in a fair and free manner the
dignity and authority of the court has to
be respected by all concerned. Failing
that, the very constitutional scheme and
public faith in the judiciary runs the risk
of being lost. Since the contemnor is also
an Advocate the matter has to be
considered with little more seriousness.
An Advocate is not merely an agent or
servant of his client, he is the officer of
the court. He owes a duty towards the
court. There can be nothing more serious
than an act of an Advocate if it tends to
obstruct or prevent the administration of
law or destroys the confidence of the
people in such administration. In the case
of N.B. Sanghvi Vs. High Court of Punjab
and Haryana reported in (1991) 3 SCC
600 the Apex Court observed "The
tendency of maligning the reputation of
judicial officers by disgruntled elements
who fail to secure the desired order is ever
on the increase and it is high time it is
nipped in the bud. And, when a member
of the profession resorts to such cheap
gimmicks with a view to browbeating the
judge into submission, it is all the more
painful. When there is a deliberate
attempt to scandalize which would shake
the confidence of the litigating public in
the system, the damage caused is not only
to the reputation of the concerned judge
but also to the fair name of the judiciary.
Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of
disrespectful language and at times
blatant condemnatory attacks like the
present
one
are
often
designedly
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
employed with a view to taming a judge
into submission to secure a desired order.
Such cases raise larger issues touching the
independence of not only the concerned
judge but the entire institution. The
foundation of our system which is based
on the independence and impartiality of
those who man it will be shaken if
disparaging and derogatory remarks are
made against the presiding judicial
officers with impunity. It is high time that
we realize that the much cherished
judicial independence has to be protected
not only from the executive or the
legislature but also from those who are an
integral
part
of
the
system.
An
independent
judiciary
is
of
vital
importance to any free society. Judicial
independence was not achieved overnight.
Since we have inherited this concept from
the British, it would not be out of place to
mention the struggle strong-willed judges
like Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the
Common Pleas, and many others had to
put up with the Crown as well as the
Parliament at considerable personal risk.
And when a member of the profession
like the appellant who should know better
so lightly trifles with the much endeared
concept of judicial independence to
secure small gains it only betrays a lack of
respect for the martyrs of judicial
independence and for the institution itself.
Their sacrifice would go waste if we are
not jealous to protect the fair name of the
judiciary from unwarranted attacks on its
independence."

15. As we said, there is no reason
whatsoever to disbelieve the facts stated
by the Presiding Officer of the court
concerned against the contemnor. The
same are found to be correct. Both the
charges related to criminal contempt
framed against him are fully established.
We should say a few words more in
respect of each of the charges.

16. So far as the first charge related
to what he did on 22.8.1998 during the
proceedings of Criminal Case No.991 of
1994 (State Vs. Ram Naresh) in the court
of the presiding officer is concerned, he
(contemnor)
committed
the
grossest
criminal contempt unimaginable of an
Advocate. A Judge has a duty to
discharge and he passes order in the
manner as he thinks fit to the best of his
capability
under
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case before him. No
litigant, far less an advocate, has any right
to take the law in his own hands. The
contemnor before us abused the Judge in
filthy most words unworthy of mouthing
by an ordinary person, what to say of a
lawyer belonging to intelligentsia class.
There was hardly any justification for his
ascending the dais during the course of
the proceedings in the manner he did and
then abusing him in these words:
"Maaderchod, Bahanchod, High Court
Ko Contempt Refer Kar." The presiding
officer had simply asked him to crossexamine the witness in the witness box
politely instead of asking questions in a
loud and threatening voice. The presiding
officer was duty-bound to ensure that the
witness was not coerced resulting the
truth becoming a casualty under the threat
of the contemnor. Law does not permit a
lawyer the liberty of causing disrespect to
the court or in any manner lowering its
dignity. The courts cannot be intimidated
to seek favourable orders. He intimidated
the presiding officer of the court hurling
filthiest abuses and lowered the authority
of his court amounting to interference
with
the
due
course
of
judicial
proceedings, which were being conducted
by him (presiding officer). By his act, he
3 All] State of U.P. V. Vishram Singh Raghubanshi
1019
also obstructed the administration of
justice. The first charge stands fully
established against him.

17. The act of the contemnor to
which the second charge relates, also
amounts to grave criminal contempt. He
got surrendered one Om Prakash son of
Sri Krishna Jatav in the fake name of Ram
Krishna son of Asharfi Lal on 25.7.1998
in the court of the presiding officer
concerned. The said fake person Om
Prakash was sent to jail instead of Ram
Krishan, who in fact, was to surrender. In
this connection, even an inquiry was held
and it came to surface that the contemnor
was the master brain for this fake process.
The contemnor was conducting the case
of the accused persons right from the
beginning in criminal case in question.
Criminal Case No. 204 of 1991 (State
Versus Asharfi Lal and others) meaning
thereby that he was well acquainted with
them as he appeared in his court on their
behalf on different dates. It was he had
initially got the accused persons bailed
out.
Subsequently
because
of
non
appearance of the accused Ram Krishna
in the court, non-bailable warrant was
issued against him. It was in this
background that the contemnor got
surrendered a fake person. By his this act,
the contemnor blackened the nobility of
the profession of advocacy and interfered
and obstructed the administration of
justice
by
polluting
the
court's
proceedings. Thus, the second charge is
also clinchingly proved against him.

18. While concluding, we should say
that the charges of criminal contempt like
the present one established against a
practicing lawyer cannot be taken lightly.
No system of justice can tolerate such
ignoble act and conduct of a practicing
lawyer. The pertinent question would be
as to what punishment we should award
to
the
contemnor
Vishram
Singh
Raghubansi, Advocate. In the case of
Preetam Pal Vs. High Court M.P., 1993
(1) SCC 529, the Supreme Court ruled as
under:

"To
punish
an
advocate
for
contempt of court, no doubt must be
regarded as an extreme measure, but to
preserve the proceedings of the courts
from being deflected or interfered with,
and to keep the streams of justice pure,
serene and undefiled, it becomes the duty
of the court, though painful to punish
the contemnor in order to preserve its
dignity. No one can claim immunity
from the operation of the law of
contempt if his act or conduct in relation
to court or court proceedings interferes
with or is calculated to obstruct the due
course of justice."

19. In the present case, we are of the
firm opinion that the apology tendered by
the contemnor is not at all bona fide or
genuine. The charges were framed against
him as back as on 27th September, 2004.
In his first affidavit dated 18th October,
2005 he denied the allegations. In the
second affidavit dated 24th November,
2005 he has made a show of tendering
apology. This apology is coming forth
after he scented that his adventure has
turned to be misadventure. It is well
settled principle that apology is not a
weapon to purge the guilt of a contemnor.
The apology must be sought at the earliest
opportunity. The apology tendered by the
contemnor is at a very belated stage to
escape the punishment for the grossest
criminal contempt committed by him. The
apology so offered by him cannot be
allowed to be employed as a device to
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
escape the rigour of law. Therefore, we do
not accept the apology of the contemnor.
Instead, we allow the reference and find
the
contemnor
Vishram
Singh
Raghubansi, Advocate to be guilty of
criminal contempt on both the charges.
We convict him accordingly under
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act
and sentence him to suffer simple
imprisonment for three months and to pay
a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment
of fine, he shall suffer further simple
imprisonment of one month. However,
the punishment so imposed shall be kept
in abeyance for a period of sixty days to
enable him to approach the Supreme
Court, if so advised.

20. The contemnor Vishram Singh
Raghubansi,
Advocate,
Collectorate,
Etawah shall be taken into custody to
serve out the sentence immediately after
the expiry of sixty days if no stay order is
passed by the Supreme Court in the
meantime.

Let the matter come up before this
court on 2nd ugust, 2006 for ensuring
compliance.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1021 of
2003

Ram Deo and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and another...Respondents/
Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Devendra Swaroop

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Constitution of India-Art. 161 and 226writ of mandamus-petitioners seeking
direction-claiming benefit of G.O. dated
11.1.2000 to 25.1.2000 by which all the
accused person, who are in Jail having
60 years age of for male and 50 years for
female-be
pardoned
by
general
direction-the G.O. relied by petitionersalready struck down by Division Bench of
High Court- with specific direction for
consideration of individual's case-No
such mandamus can be issued-However
if any representation made before the
Government shall be considered by
giving full fledged opportunity within
one month from the date of receipt of
such application.

Held: Para 3

Article 161 of the Constitution of India
speaks that the Government has power
to grant pardon etc. and suspend to
commute sentences in certain cases. We
are also of the view such power is to be
exercised on the basis of individual cases
and following process laid down in the
Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also
significant to note that the appropriate
Government may or may not accept the
pardon. Therefore, at this juncture, the
High Court cannot calculate the period of
imprisonment and hold by itself that on
the individual cases of the petitioners,
they
will
be
sent
for
further
imprisonment or they will pardoned. It is
for essential function of the Government
nor for the writ court. Striking down by
the
general
order
passed
by
the
Government does not mean considering
the individual cases, has been usurped.
Therefore, remedy is open for the
petitioners
to
approach
before
to
appropriate
Government
for
consideration of their individual case.
Case law discussed: