# C.J.M. Fatehpur v. Sri Prakash Singh and another

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 521
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-05-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Contempt No. 30 of 2006
- **Bench:** Yatindra Singh, B.N. Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-j-m-fatehpur-v-sri-prakash-singh-and-another-41620
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Contempt of Court Act 1971-Section-10Contemnor the practicing Advocate-not
only interrupted the court functioning
but also scandalise the Court-plea of bar
of Section 10 of the Act not availablecharges fully proved but considering the
relation of Bench and Bar punishment of
fine shall meet the end of justice.

Held: Para 36 and 57

The Vishwanath Case cited by the
contemner was decided on its own facts.
In that case the Court held that the case
was
covered
by
section
228
IPC
whereas,
in
the
present
case,
the
incidents and the charges are not so
covered. The contempt proceedings are
not barred by the proviso to section 10
of the 1971 Act.

However, sometime a Judge has to
remain firm; use strong language. This is
what happened in this case. The CJM
might have used strong language to
control the court proceeding. There is
nothing objectionable in it. But the
contemners in the complaint insisted
that the Judge should apologies and
claimed damages of Rs. 5 lakhs. This
clearly indicates that their intention was
to intimidate and terrorise the court
thereby scandalising and lowering down
the
authority
of
the
court,
thus
obstructing the justice.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1038 Alld 358, 1984 CrlJ 337 SC, 2001
CrlJ 4204 SC, 2001 CrLJ 1702 SC, 2002 CrLJ
1814 SC.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,905 of 40,800. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39905 for what follows._

2 All] C.J.M. Fatehpur V. Sri Prakash Singh and another
521
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.05.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE B.N. SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Contempt No. 30 of 2006

C.J.M. Fatehpur

 ...Applicant
Versus
Sri Prakash Singh and another

 ...Contemnor

Counsel for the Applicant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Contemnor:
Sri Prabaht Agarwal

Contempt of Court Act 1971-Section-10Contemnor the practicing Advocate-not
only interrupted the court functioning
but also scandalise the Court-plea of bar
of Section 10 of the Act not availablecharges fully proved but considering the
relation of Bench and Bar punishment of
fine shall meet the end of justice.

Held: Para 36 and 57

The Vishwanath Case cited by the
contemner was decided on its own facts.
In that case the Court held that the case
was
covered
by
section
228
IPC
whereas,
in
the
present
case,
the
incidents and the charges are not so
covered. The contempt proceedings are
not barred by the proviso to section 10
of the 1971 Act.

However, sometime a Judge has to
remain firm; use strong language. This is
what happened in this case. The CJM
might have used strong language to
control the court proceeding. There is
nothing objectionable in it. But the
contemners in the complaint insisted
that the Judge should apologies and
claimed damages of Rs. 5 lakhs. This
clearly indicates that their intention was
to intimidate and terrorise the court
thereby scandalising and lowering down
the
authority
of
the
court,
thus
obstructing the justice.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1038 Alld 358, 1984 CrlJ 337 SC, 2001
CrlJ 4204 SC, 2001 CrLJ 1702 SC, 2002 CrLJ
1814 SC.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.)

1. The bar and the bench are wheels
of the same chariot and it is painful to
exercise contempt proceeding against one
of them. But our duty is to see that the
chariot moves on and does not stop due
malfunctioning of one of them.

THE FACTS

2. Three cases are being decided by
this judgement: two of them are the
contempt references sent by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur (the CJM)
involving four contemners; and the third
one is criminal revision against the order
dated 20.11.2006 dismissing the criminal
complaint of one of the contemner.

3.

Three
of
contemners
are
practising advocates in the Fatehpur
judgeship: they are Sri Prakash Singh, Sri
Prachitya Paurav and Sri Gyanendra
Singh. They were enrolled as the
advocates in 1972, 1991, and 2004
respectively. The fourth one, Ms. Shivali
is the daughter of one of the contemner
Sri Prakash Singh. She obtained her LLB
degree in 2003 but is not enrolled as an
Advocate.

First Contempt

4. Criminal Contempt No. 30 of
2006 arises out of an incident happened
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
on 27.10.2006 and about a book titled as
'Nyaya
Palika
Mein
Apradhikaran'
(U;k;ikfydk esa vijk/khdj.k) (the Book) written
by Sri Prakash Singh and his daughter
Ms. Shivali. The relevant facts in this
regard are as mentioned in the succeeding
paragraph.

5. One Hori Lal was accused in
criminal case No. 1866 of 2005 pending
in the court of the CJM. In this case,
2.9.2006 was fixed. On that date, Horilal
did not appear. An application was filed
to exempt his presence. It was dismissed
on the same date on the ground that court
fee stamp was not affixed. Thereafter an
order was passed on 16.10.2006 for
summoning the accused for 3.1.2007
through non bailable warrant (NBW).

6. On 27.10.2006, an application
was filed to cancel the NBW. On this
application, two orders of the same date
are mentioned. The first order states the
use of insulting words by Sri Prakash
Singh and initiating Criminal Contempt
reference through the District Judge. The
second order records that the case was
taken up at 1:30pm and as accused was
not
present,
the
application
was
dismissed. However, on 30.10.2006, on a
fresh application, NBW against Hori Lal
was recalled.

7. Subsequently, the CJM sent a
reference on 3.11.2006 through the
District Judge, Fatehpur to this Court for
initiating criminal contempt against Sri
Prakash Singh. It has been registered as
criminal contempt No. 30 of 2006 (the
first contempt) for the incident in his
court on 27.10.2006 as well as for writing
the Book.

Second Contempt

8. The second contempt is about a
complaint and an incident in the CJM's
court on 14.11.2006. The relevant facts
are
mentioned
in
the
succeeding
paragraphs.

9. Sri Prakash Singh, advocate sent a
notice dated 28.10.2006 to the CJM
requiring him to apologies for the incident
on
27.11.2006,
failing
which
legal
proceeding would be taken against him.

10. He filed a criminal complaint no.
4299 of 2006 (the Complaint) against the
CJM on 14.11.2006. This went to the
same court. It was accompanied with
application to transfer the Complaint as it
was against the CJM.

11. The CJM passed an order on
14.11.2006 that as the Complaint is
against him it may be placed before the
Sessions Judge, Fatehpur for necessary
direction.

12. The Complaint and transfer
application were received by the Sessions
Judge on the same date i.e. 14.11.2006.
He passed an order requiring sadar
munsrim to give his report on the
following points:

•
Whether
Sri
Prakash
Singh,
Advocate,
Fatehpur
has
filed
the
Complaint with his signature;

•
Whether it was filed through Sri
Gyanendra Singh, advocate.

13. The sadar munsirim submitted
its report on 15.11.2006 verifying that it
was signed by Sri Prakash Singh and was
2 All] C.J.M. Fatehpur V. Sri Prakash Singh and another
523
filed by Sri Gyanendra Singh, advocate in
the computer room.

14. The Sessions Judge passed an
order on 15.11.2006 transferring the
complaint to the ACJM, Court No. 10,
Fatehpur (the ACJM) for adjudication.

15. After the Complaint was sent to
the Sessions Judge for necessary action,
another incident happened in the court of
CJM on 14.11.1986 involving Sri Prakash
Singh, Sri Prachtiya Paurav, and Sri
Gyanendra Singh.

16. The CJM has sent another
reference dated 23.11.2006 through the
District Judge for initiating contempt
proceeding against Sri Prakash Singh,
Prachitya Paurav, and Sri Gyanendra
Singh. This was registered as criminal
contempt No. 1 of 2007 (the second
contempt).

Criminal Revision

17. In the meantime, the ACJM,
Fatehpur dismissed the Complaint of Sri
Prakash Singh on 20.11.2006. Sri Prakash
Singh has filed criminal revision no. 577
of 2007 against the same.

Charges In Contempt

18. The notices in criminal contempt
reference no. 30 of 2006 were issued on
7.12.2006 and in contempt No. 1 of 2007
on 19.2.2007. These three cases arise out
of the same chain of incidents. It is proper
that they should be decided together.
They were consolidated.

19. These cases were taken up on
21.12.2009. On that date, a preliminary
objection was raised on behalf of the
contemners that there was no reference in
the eyes of law and the criminal contempt
case should be dismissed.

20. After hearing, Sri Prakash Singh
and the counsel for the other contemners,
the order on the preliminary objection was
reserved
on
the
same
day.
The
preliminary objection was overruled on
5.2.2010 and charges were framed on the
same day.

21. Five charges were framed
against Sri Prakash Singh. They are as
follows:

(i) Firstly, that you, on 27-10-2006, when
the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Fatehpur was busy in hearing bail
applications, entered in the court room
and spoke loudly and asked as to why the
application for exemption from personal
appearance of the accused was being
rejected by the court. When the Presiding
officer of the said court tried you to calm
down and keep silence, you created
rowdy scenes and insulted and abused the
Presiding
Officer
and
also
gave
threatening to him and when the litigants
and the advocates present in the court
tried to calm down, you uttered "TUM
LOGON KO DHIKKAR HAI, 'TUM
LOG MERA SAATH NAHI DE RAHE
HO AUR YEH KI IS NYAYALAYA
KE PEETHASEEN ADHIKARI KA
DIMAGH KHARAB HO GAYA HAI."
and thereby scandalised, and lowered
down the authority of, the court and
interfered with the judicial proceedings of
the
court
and
obstructed
the
administration of justice and by doing so
committed the criminal contempt under
section 2(C) of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 and within the cognizance of
this Court.
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
(ii) Secondly, that you, on 27.10.2006,
with the assistance of co-contemnor Km.
Shivali,
have
written
the
book
"Nyaypalika Me Apradhikaran" and
got it printed, published, circulated and
sold in public, wherein derogatory,
scandalous and contemptuous statements
against the subordinate judiciary, High
Court, Supreme Court and also against the
Judges have been made particularly at
pages 116, 117, 123, 124, 127, 140, 152,
159, 171 and 172 and thereby scandalised,
and lowered down the authority of, the
judges and the courts and by doing so
committed the criminal contempt under
section 2(C) of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 and within the cognizance of
this Court.

(iii) Thirdly, that you, on 14-11-2006,
filed a false, scandalous and frivolous
complaint
through
co-contemnor
Sri
Gyanendra Singh, advocate, in the court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur
against the presiding officer of that court
stating therein not only scandalous
language against the presiding officer but
also demanded a sum of Rs. five lac as
compensation from him with intent to
intimidate and terrorise him to pass
judicial orders in your favour and thereby
scandalised, and lowered down the
authority of, the court and interfered with
the judicial proceedings of the court and
obstructed the administration of justice
and by doing so committed the criminal
contempt under section 2(C) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and within
the cognizance of this Court.

(iv) Fourthly, that you, on 14.11.2006,
after the lunch recess, alongwith cocontemnors Sri Prachitya Paurav and Sri
Gyanendra Singh, advocate entered in the
court
room
of
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Fatehpur under intoxication
and disturbed the court proceedings and
judicial work by raising hue and cry and
thereby scandalised, and lowered down
the authority of, the court and interfered
with the judicial proceedings of the court
and obstructed the administration of
justice and by doing so committed the
criminal contempt under section 2(C) of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and
within the cognizance of this Court.

(v) Fifthly, that you, before filing the
aforesaid complaint case, sent a notice
dated 28.10.2006 to the presiding officer
of the aforesaid court, using therein not
only scandalous language against him but
also demanded a sum of Rs. five lac as
compensation from him with intent to
intimidate and terrorise him and thereby
scandalised, and lowered down the
authority of, the court and interfered with
the judicial proceedings of the court and
obstructed the administration of justice
and by doing so committed the criminal
contempt under section 2(C) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and within
the cognizance of this Court.

22. One charge each was framed
against Sri Prachitya Paurav and Ms.
Shivali. Two charges were framed against
Sri Gyanendra Singh. They are similar to
the charges framed against Sri Prakash
Singh. Their similarities are as follows:

•
The charge against Sri Prachitya
Paurav is similar to charge no. 4 of Sri
Prakash Singh.

•
The charge against Sri Shivali is
similar as charge no. 2 of Sri Prakash
Singh.
2 All] C.J.M. Fatehpur V. Sri Prakash Singh and another
525
•
Charge nos 1 and 2 of Sri Gyanendra
Singh are similar to charge nos. 3 and 4 of
Sri Prakash Singh.

23. Sri Gyanendra Singh filed an
application dated 19.2.2010 alongwith his
personal affidavit. He regretted the
incident dated 14.11.2006 and tendered
his unconditional apology.

24. In this case, several counter and
supplementary counter affidavits were
filed on behalf of the contemners. Sri
Prakash Singh and Sri Prachitya Paurav
filed a joint affidavit on 12.4.2010
incorporating their previous replies. They
have nothing further to add.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

25. We have heard Sri Prakash
Singh, contemner personally; Sri Prabhat
Agrawal, counsel for Sri Prachitya Paurav
and Ms. Shivali; Sri Raja Singh for
Gyanendra
Singh;
and
Sri
Sudhir
Mehrotra, AGA as the prosecuting
counsel1. As Sri Prakash Singh argued
the case personally and other contemners
were heard through counsel, they are
referred to as the Contemners in the
judgement.

26. The following points arise for
determination:

(i) Whether proviso to section 10 of the
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (the 1971
Act) bars the present proceedings;
(ii) In case the answer to the first point is
in negative, then on whom lies the burden
to prove the contempt;
(iii) Whether the charges are proved;
(iv) Whether the order dated 20.11.2006
impugned in the revision is legal;
(v) Whether apology of Sri Gyanendra
Singh should be accepted?
(vi) In case any charge is proved against
the contemners then, what punishment be
awarded to them.

1ST POINT: BAR NOT APPLICABLE

27. The counsel for the appellant
cited State Vs. Vishwanath Singh Yadav;
1990 ACC 264 (All) (the Vishwanath
case) and submitted that:

•
Charge no. 1 and charge no. 4
(similar to the only charge against Sri
Prachitya Paurav and the second charge of
Sri Gyanendra Singh) relate to the
incident happened in the court.
•
Even if they are correct, they at the
most would amount to intentional insult
or interruption to public servant sitting in
judicial
proceedings
and
would
be
covered under section 228 of IPC;
•
The proceedings on these charges are
barred under proviso to section 10 of the
1971 Act.

28. The High Court being superior
court of record always had power to
punish its own contempt. However, it was
debatable whether the High Court had
power to punish the contempt of the
subordinate courts. It is in order to
remove this doubt that the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1926 (the 1926 Act) was
enacted. This is clear from the statement
of object and reason of the 1926 Act.

29. The 1926 Act specifically
provided same power and procedure for
the contempt of the subordinate court as it
has for its own contempt. However, it
restricted the power to protect subordinate
courts against contempts which were not
already provided for in the Indian Penal
Code (IPC).
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

30. Section 2 of the 1926 Act is
entitled as 'Power of the Superior Courts
to punish contempts of courts'. It
empowered the High Courts to punish for
contempt of the subordinate court. Subsection (1) and (2) of Section 2 of the
1926
Act
conferred
similar
power,
authority, and procedure in respect of
contempts of subordinate courts as it has
in respect of its own contempt. However,
sub section (3) of section 2 barred the
High Court from taking cognisance of
contempt of the subordinate courts where
such contempt was an offence punishable
under the IPC.

31. The Contempt of Courts Act
1952 (the 1952 Act) replaced the 1926
Act but contained similar provision in
section 3. The 1952 Act was replaced by
the 1971 Act. Section 10 of the 1971 Act
is entitled 'Power of High Court to punish
contempt of subordinate courts'. The main
section retains the power as was granted
in section 2(1) (2) of the 1926 Act or
section 3(1) (2) of the 1952 Act and the
bar contained in sub-section (3) of the
relevant sections of the earlier Acts is
contained in form of a proviso to the main
section 10 of the 1971 Act.

32. As far back as in 1938, a
division bench2 of our court interpreted
the bar of taking cognizance of contempt
of the subordinate courts. The court held,

'An Act may amount to the offence
under the Penal Code and it may also
amount to contempt of Court. In such
case the act will be punishable both under
the Penal code and as contempt of Court.
The only exception to this rule that has
been enacted by the Contempt of Courts
Act is that if the act is punishable by the
Penal Code as contempt of court then that
act can not form the subject of contempt
proceedings by the High Court. S. 228,
Penal Code provides for punishment of
intentional insult or interruption to a
public
servant
sitting
in
judicial
proceeding. This section provides for
punishment of contempt of court and the
offence contemplated by that section
cannot therefore in view of the provisions
of CI(3) of section 2, form the subject of
proceedings for contempt by this court'.

The Court clarified,

'The
purpose
of
contempt
proceedings is however entirely different.
The object of such proceedings is to
vindicate the dignity and honour of the
Courts subordinate to this Court and this
purpose could not have been served by
the institution of complaints by the
judicial officers. For the reason given
above we hold that CI (3) of S. 2,
Contempt of Courts Act [the 1926 Act] is
no bar to the present proceedings.'

This was reiterated by the Supreme Court
in State of MP Vs. Revashankar; AIR
1959 SC 102 (the Revashankar case).

33. In the Revashankar case, the
High Court had dismissed the contempt
application on the ground that the act
committed was an offence under section
228 IPC and as such the jurisdiction of the
High Court to punish for the contempt
was barred. The Supreme Court allowing
the appeal held:

'The High Court had the right to
protect
subordinate
courts
against
contempt, but subject to this restriction,
that case of contempt which have already
been provided for in the Indian Penal
2 All] C.J.M. Fatehpur V. Sri Prakash Singh and another
527
Code should not be taken cognizance of
by the High Court.
...

We are of the opinion that the
learned Judges were wrong in their view
that prima facie the act complained of
amounted to an offence under section
228, Indian Panel Code and no more. We
are advisedly saying prima facie, because
the High Court did not go into the merits
and we have no desire to make any final
pronouncement at this stage on the merits
of the case.
...

The essential ingredients of the
offence [under section 228 IPC] are (1),
intention, (2) insult or interruption to a
public servant and (3) the public servant
insulted or interrupted must be sitting in
any stage of a judicial proceeding.
...

The true test is: is the act complained
of an offence under section 228, Indian
Panel Code, or is it something more than
that? If in its true nature and effect, the act
complained of is really 'scandalising the
court' rather than a mere insult, then it is
clear that on the ratio of our decidion in
Ramkrishna Reddy's case (AIR 1952 SC
149) the jurisdiction of the High Court is
not ousted by reason of the provision in
section 3(2) of the Act.

34. The Revashankar case has been
followed by a full bench3 of Delhi High
Court and a division bench4 of our court.
In these cases, the contempt proceedings
were not dropped but were continued.

35. Section 228 IPC is only
concerned with the intentional insult or
interruption to public servant while acting
in a judicial proceeding. In the present
case, the incidents not only amount to
insult and interruption in the judicial
proceedings but also scandalise the court,
lower its authority, and are obstruction in
administration of justice. They are not
covered by section 228 IPC.

36. The Vishwanath Case cited by
the contemner was decided on its own
facts. In that case the Court held that the
case was covered by section 228 IPC
whereas, in the present case, the incidents
and the charges are not so covered. The
contempt proceedings are not barred by
the proviso to section 10 of the 1971 Act.

2ND POINT: CHARGE TO BE
PROVED--BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.

37. The contemners cited the
following decisions in support of the
second point:

(i) MR Parasar Vs. Dr. Farooq Abdullah
and others:1984 CrlJ 337 SC (the Parasar
case)l;
(ii) Chotu Ram Vs. Urvashi Gulati and
others: 2001 CrLJ 4204 SC;
(iii) Mrityunjoy Das and others Vs. Sayed
Hasbur Rahman and others: 2001 CrLJ
1702 SC;
(iv) Anil Ratan Sarkar Vs. Hirak Ghosh:
2002 CrLJ 1814 SC.

38. In case the charges are proved in
the
contempt
proceedings
then
the
contemner can be sent to jail and can be
fined. These proceedings are quasi
criminal in nature and the charges are to
be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This
was also held in the ruling cited by the
contemners. However, these rulings are
on their facts:

•
In the first case, a statement of the
Chief Minister was reported in the
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
newspaper. It is on the basis of this report
that
the
contempt
proceeding
was
initiated. The Chief Minister denied
making the statement reported in the
newspaper. The court held that the
charges were not proved;

•
In the remaining cases the question
was whether the contemners in those
cases violated the orders passed by the
court. The court on the facts of the second
and third case held that the contempt was
not proved whereas in the fourth case the
contempt was held to be proved.

These cases were decided on their facts
and have no relevance so far as the
present
contempt
proceedings
are
concerned except for the proposition of
law as stated above.

3RD POINT: CHARGES PARTLY
PROVED

39. Five charges have been levelled
against Sri Prakash Singh, Advocate. Two
charges have been levelled against Sri
Gyanendra Singh, one charge has been
levelled against Sri Prachitya Paurav and
Ms. Shivali. Some charge levelled against
Sri Prakash Singh are similar to the
charges framed for other contemners.
They are being decided together.

1st Charge Against Sri Prakash Singh--
Proved

40. Horilal and Phaguni were
accused in different criminal cases. They
had not appeared on the date fixed for
them and NBW were issued against them.
Sri Prakash Singh filed two applications
on their behalf on 27.10.2006 to recall the
orders issuing NBW.

41 . The aforesaid two applications
were placed before the CJM concerned
and in the case of Phaguni, NBW were
cancelled on 27.10.2006. However, on the
back of the application of Hori Lal the
following order is recorded:

Okkj.V fujLr djus ds izkFkZuk i= ij viuk i{k j[kus ds
ctk; vf/koDrk Jh izdk'k flag us U;k;ky; esa vi'kCnksa dk
bLrseky izkjEHk dj fn;k A U;k;ky; dks /kedh nh fd esjk
uke izdk'k flag gS] U;k;ky; dks gh mlls ekWaQh ekaxuh gksxh
Hkjh vnkyr esa ;g dguk fd U;k;ky; dk fnekx [kjkc gks
x;k gS] U;k;ky; dh voekuuk gSA ekeyk tuin U;k;/kh'k
ds ek/;e ls vijkf/kd voekuuk ds fy, ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; dks lanfHkZr fd;k tk;A

gLrk{kj

27-10-2006
U;k;ky; esa dk;Z iw.kZ gksrs gh 1-30 ij iqu% bl i=koyh
esa vkokt yxk;h x;h rks vf/koDrk tk pqds gSa mUgksaus
vf/koDrkvksa dks Hkh f/kDdkjk D;ksafd muds 'kksj ij
vf/koDrkvksa us Hkh vkifRr dh FkhA
;g izkFkZuk i= okj.V fujLr djus ds fy, fn;k x;k gS]
ysfdu vfHk;qDr mifLFkr ugha gSA
izkFkZuki= [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA

gLrk{kj]

27-10-2006

42. The Contemners submitted that:

•
This order was not recorded on
27.10.2006;
•
It was recorded subsequently
after the notice sent by Sri Prakash Singh
to the CJM;
•
It is fortified by the fact that no
order is recorded in the order sheet.

43. Photocopy of the order sheet is
on record. In the order sheet, an order is
recorded on 16.10.2006 and thereafter
half page is empty. Then on the next page
order dated 30.10.2006 is recorded.

44. In the courts, sometime, the
orders are recorded on the order sheet and
sometime they are recorded on the
2 All] C.J.M. Fatehpur V. Sri Prakash Singh and another
529
application itself. After the order dated
16.10.2006, half page space was empty.
In case, order was subsequently recorded
then it could have been easily recorded on
the space left after the order dated
16.10.2006. This shows that the CJM
chose to record the order on the
application.

45. The CJM, in the reference, has
mentioned that he had recorded the order
on the back of the application. There is
nothing to doubt that it was not recorded
on 27.10.2006. In our opinion the order
was recorded on 27.10.2006 and not
subsequently.

46. The order on the back of the
application records that Sri Prakash Singh
had used abusive language and he insisted
that the court would have to apologise. In
the reference, signed and sent by the CJM
to this court, the abusive language has
been mentioned. It is indicated in the first
charge. The Parasar case is different. It
was about the statement said to be made
by the Chief Minister in a meeting but
here abusive language was used in the
court, in front of the CJM and is recorded
by him. Merely denying it in the counter
affidavit does not disprove it.

47. The utterance that the court had
gone mad and should apologies shows
that the contemner not only wanted to
scandalise the court but also lowered
down its authority and obstructed the
administration of justice.

48. In our opinion, the first charge is
proved beyond reasonable doubt.

2nd Charge Against Sri Prakash Singh,
the Only Charge against
Ms. Shivali―Not Proved.

49. The second charge against Sri
Prakash Singh and the only charge against
Ms. Shivali is for writing the Book. It
contains criticism of some decisions;
some suggestions for improvement in the
judicial system; and some paper cuttings
relating to some Judges showing them in
poor light.

50. At places, the language of the
Book could have been better; it leaves
sourly
taste
and
has
room
for
improvement. However, as Lord Atkin
said5: 'Justice is not a cloistered virtue:
she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny
and respectful even though outspoken
comments of ordinary men.'

51. Justice Frankfuter in 'Mr. Justice
Holmes and the Supreme Court' said:

'It is a mistake to suppose that the
Supreme Court is either honoured or
helped by being spoken of as beyond
criticism. On the contrary the life and
character of its justices should be objects
of constant watchfulness by all and its
judgements subject of freest criticism.
The time is past in the history of the
world when any living man or body of
men can be set on a pedestal and
decorated with halo. True many criticism
may be, like their authors, devoid of good
taste but better all sorts of criticism then
no criticism at all. The moving water are
full of life and health. Only in the still
waters is stagnation and death'.

52. We do have short comings; our
judicial system is not perfect; we are
taking steps to improve. The adverse
comments are not to be suppressed under
threat of contempt but require removal
with correction. The Book may be taken
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
in the constructive way; like a caution or a
reminder, rather than anything else.

53. Considering the Book as a
whole, we have our doubts whether the
second charge against Sri Prakash Singh
and the only charge against Ms. Shivali is
proved.

3rd Charge against Sri Prakash Singh
and Ist charge against Sri Gyanendra
Singh―Proved.

54. It is not disputed that the
Complaint was filed by Sri Prakash Singh
through Sri Gyanendra Singh. This
Complaint was regarding the incident
dated 27.10.2006, which is subject matter
of discussion in charge no. 1 against Sri
Prakash Singh.

55. A good Judge is not only learned
and honest but knows how to control the
court proceedings. At times, he has to
deal tactfully; at times has to deal strongly
though ideally he should always remain
cool.

56. Lord Denning in his book "The
Due Process of Law' (page 6) narrates an
incident:

'On every Monday morning we hear
litigants in person. Miss Stone was often
there. She made an application before us.
We refused it. She was sitting in the front
row with a book-case within her reach.
She picked up one of Butterworth's
Workmen's Compensation Cases' and
threw it at us. It passed between Lord
Justice Diplok and me. She said, "I am
running out of ammunition". We took
little notice. She had hoped we would
commit her for Contempt of Court―just
to draw more attention herself. As we
took no notice, she went towards the door.
She left saying: "I congratulate your
Lordship on your coolness under fire"'.

The matter was handled coolly. This is the
best policy.

57. However, sometime a Judge has
to remain firm; use strong language. This
is what happened in this case. The CJM
might have used strong language to
control the court proceeding. There is
nothing objectionable in it. But the
contemners in the complaint insisted that
the Judge should apologies and claimed
damages of Rs. 5 lakhs. This clearly
indicates that their intention was to
intimidate and terrorise the court thereby
scandalising and lowering down the
authority of the court, thus obstructing the
justice.

58. In our opinion, the third charge
against Sri Prakash Singh and first charge
against Sri Gyanendra Singh is proved
beyond reasonable doubt.

4th Charge Against Sri Prakash Singh,
IInd Charge Against Sri Gyanendra
Singh and the only Charge against Sri
Prachitya Paurav―Partly proved.

59. The Complaint was against the
CJM and was filed in his court alongwith
application to transfer. On this Complaint,
the CJM passed the order that it may be
placed
before
the
Sessions
Judge,
Fatehpur for necessary direction. The
complaint and transfer application were
received by the Sessions Judge on the
same date i.e. 14.11.2006. Thereafter he
called for the report mentioned earlier (See
sub-heading 'Second Contempt' under the
heading 'THE FACTS').
2 All] C.J.M. Fatehpur V. Sri Prakash Singh and another
531

60. The CJM in his reference has
mentioned that on 14.11.2006, Sri Prakash
Singh, Sri Prachitya Paurav and Sri
Gyanendra Singh appeared in his court
after lunch. They disturbed the court,
raised hue and cry, and claimed Rs. 5 lakhs
as compensation.

61. The contemners submit that:

•
The CJM has mentioned in the second
reference that Sri Prakash Singh, Sri
Prachitya Paurav and Sri Gyanendra Singh
appeared in his court on 14.11.2006, after
the case was transferred by the Sessions
Judge to the ACJM;
•
The
case
was
transferred
on
15.11.2006 and not on 14.11.2006;

•
An incorrect statement has been
mentioned in the second reference.

62. The CJM had sent the Complaint
to the Sessions Judge on 14.11.2008. The
file had already gone from his court on
14.11.2006. The CJM had no information
on what date actual transfer was made. The
reference was sent by the CJM on
23.11.2006. On that, the only information
CJM had that the Complaint was dismissed
on 20.11.2006. This is also mentioned in
the reference.

63. It is correct that the complaint
was transferred from the court of CJM on
15.11.2006 and not on 14.11.2006. In the
reference, it is wrongly mentioned that the
file was transferred to the ACJM. In fact, it
had gone from the CJM's court on
14.11.2006. However, this neither falsifies
the incident on 14.11.2006 after lunch nor
it makes the reference bad. Mere denial in
the counter affidavit is nothing especially
when Sri Gyanendra Singh has filed his
apology
regretting
the
incident
on
14.11.2006.

64. The file of the criminal contempt
had already gone from the court of CJM.
The disturbance, hue and cry was raised in
front of him; the demand of Rs. 5 lakhs as
damages was made in front of him. There
is nothing to show that the facts stated in
the reference that Sri Prakash Singh, Sri
Gyanendra Singh and Sri Prachitya Paurav
appeared in his court after lunch is
incorrect. There is nothing to doubt
veracity of this part of the reference.

65. In this reference, it is mentioned
that from the appearance of the advocates
it appeared that they were under influence
of some alcoholic drink. They were not
examined medically at that time. A counter
affidavit has been filed in which it is
indicated that the contemners neither drink
nor were they drunk at that time.

66. In view of above, a part of 4th
charge against Sri Prakash Singh and
second charge against Sri Gyanendra
Singh and only charge against Sri
Prachitya Paurav is not proved that they
were under influence of intoxicants. The
rest of the charges that they entered the
court room disturbed the court proceedings
by a raising hue and cry and thereby
scandalised
and
lowered
down
the
authority of the court is proved.

67. In our opinion, fourth charge
against Sri Prakash Singh, second charge
agaisnt Sri Gyanendra Singh and the only
charge against Sri Prachitya Paurav is
partly proved beyond reasonable doubt.

5th

Charge against Sri Prakash
Singh―Partly Proved.
532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

68. The sending of the notice dated
28.10.2006 by Sri Prakash Singh is
accepted. The notice insists that the CJM
should accept his mistake and apologise
and otherwise he would take recourse to
legal proceeding.

69. In this notice, compensation of
Rs. 5 lakhs is not claimed. The part of the
charge is not proved.

70. The contents of the notice prove
that it was intended to intimidate and
terrorise the court thereby scandalising and
lowering down the authority of the court
thus obstructing the administration of
justice.

71. In our opinion, this charge is also
partly proved beyond reasonable doubt. 4th

4th POINT: NO MERIT IN THE
REVISION

72. The ACJM dismissed the
complaint filed by Sri Prakash Singh on
20.11.2006 on the ground that there is no
sanction. Sri Prakash Singh cited; BS
Shambhu Vs. TS Krishna Swamy; 1983
CrLJ 158 (the Shambhu case) and
submitted that

• The CJM while using the words was
not discharging the official duty; and

•
No sanction was required.

73. In the Shambhu case, a transfer
application was filed. The remarks of the
Judge were called for and in these
remarks, the Judge had mentioned with
the applicant seeking transfer was 'rowdy,
gambler, and mischievous elements'. The
Court held that these words were not
connected with the discharge of official
duty and as such no sanction under
section 197 CrPC was unnecessary.
However, this is not the case here.

74. The CJM was sitting in the court
discharging judicial functions. He has to
manage his court. In case a lawyer
disturbs the court then at time he may
have to use strong language. This is
discussed while dealing the third charge
against Sri Prakash Singh under previous
point. The CJM was discharging official
function: sanction under section 197 was
necessary. There is no illegality in the
order dated 20.11.2006. The revision has
no merits.

5th POINT: APOLOGY OF SRI
GYANENDRA SINGH ACCEPTED

75. Sri Gyanendra Singh has filed an
application dated 19.2.2010 alongwith an
affidvit. He has regretted the incident
dated 14.11.2006 and has also tendered
his unconditional apology.

76. He is junior than Sri Prakash
Singh. He might have been party to it in
deference to his senior.

77. In our opinion his unconditional
apology is bonafide and should be
accepted. The contempt notice against Sri
Gyanendra Singh is discharged.

6TH POINT : PUNISHMENT

78. Such incidents make mockery of
process
of
law.
They
deserve
condemnation.
It
is
all
the
more
reprehensible in a lawyer, who has
undertaken to uphold the law and secure
justice for his countrymen. Who will
uphold the dignity of the courts if not the
lawyers.
2 All] C.J.M. Fatehpur V. Sri Prakash Singh and another
533

79. Let the contemners learn a
lesson. Let's hope that such incidents will
become a thing of past and will not
happen again.

80. We have given our anxious
consideration. After all, we are not happy
to invoke contempt proceeding against
one of the wheels of the chariot of which
we are also a part.

81.

Considering
the
entire
circumstances of the case, hoping that
contemners would ponder, and such
incidents do not recur―we think that ends
of justice would be met by imposing a
sentence of fine only. After all, lawyers
and judicial officers both have to
cooperate and maintain decorum in the
court.
We,
therefore,
impose
the
following sentence:

•
Sri Prakash Singh is fined Rs.
15,00/- (Rupees one thousand and five
hundred) with default stipulation of three
weeks simple imprisonment; and

•
Sri Prachitya Paurav is fined Rs.
5,00/- (Rupees five hundred) with default
stipulation
of
one
week
simple
imprisonment.

CONCLUSIONS

82. Our conclusions are as follows:

(i) The contempt proceedings are not
barred by a proviso to section 10 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

(ii) A charge in a contempt case has to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt;

(iii) The charges proved or partly proved
against the contemners are as follows:
•
Sri Prakash Singh: Charge no. 1 and
3 are fully proved; Charge no. 4 and 5 are
partly proved; Charge No. 2 is not proved.

•
Ms. Shivali: Charge is not proved.

•
Sri Gyanendra Singh: Charge no. 1 is
fully proved; Charge no. 2 is partly
proved.

•
Sri Prachitya Paurav: Charge is
partly proved.

(iv) In view of unconditional apology of
Sri Gyanendra Singh, he is discharged
from contempt proceedings;

(v) For the reason given above, we do not
impose the sentence of imprisonment but
the following fine is imposed:

•
Sri Prakash Singh is fined Rs.
15,00/-
(Rupees
one
thousand
five
hundred) with default stipulation of three
weeks simple imprisonment;

•
Sri Prachitya Paurav is fined Rs.
500/- (Rupees five hundred) with default
stipulation
of
one
week
simple
imprisonment.

83. In view of our conclusions, the
criminal revision No. 577 oif 2007 is
dismissed whereas the criminal contempt
no. 30 of 2006 and 1 of 2007 are disposed
of. Sri Prakash Singh and Sri Prachtiya
Paurav are granted three months' time to
deposit the fine, failing which they will be
taken into custody to undergo the default
period of imprisonment.
---------
534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.05.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. SATISH CHANDRA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 72 of 2004

Union of India

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Makrand Kumar Rawat and another

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Rajendra Jaisawal

Railways Claims Act, 1927, Section-23Appeal against award by Railway claim
Tribunal-on ground contributory negligence
of
deceased
itself-finding
regarding
bonafide
passenger-confirmed-in
case
passenger fell down because of jerkpassenger can not be blamed-held-award
does not suffer from any impropriety or
illegality warrant, no interference.

Held: Para 9

In a over-populated country, in case the
Government or the railway fails to provide
sufficient number of trains and regulate the
entry in the compartment and a person
enters
into
the
compartment
after
purchasing a ticket, he shall be bona fide
passenger and in case he fell down from the
train because of jerk, then for such
accident, the passenger may not be blamed.
Case Law discussed:
2009(27) LDC 240

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Anil Srivastava,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
appellant and Mr. Rajendra Jaisway,
learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present appeal under Section 23
of the Railway Claims Act, 1927 (in
short, Act) has been preferred against the
impugned award dated 3.12.2003, passed
by
the
Railway
Claims
Tribunal,
Lucknow in Case No.-O.A. - 0000002.

3. Brief facts, giving rise to the
instant First Appeal from Order relate to
the accident occurred on 6.11.1999. The
deceased Anand Kumar Rawat was
travelling by Lucknow Gonda passenger
train on 6.11.1999 and accidentally, he
fell down from train at a place between
Jhangirabad Raj and Raffi Nagar railway
station. He succumbed to the injuries at
the spot.