# In Re: (Om Prakash Dixit) v. Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan Contemnor

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 104
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-02-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Contempt Petition No. 11 of 2007
- **Bench:** Imtiyaz Murtaza, S.S. Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-re-om-prakash-dixit-v-shiv-raj-singh-chauhan-contemnor-41618
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 2
(c)-Criminal
Contempt-contemnor
a
practicing
advocate
repeated
interference with functioning of Courtthreat in case desired record of the case
not summoned and heard not aware
what would be apposed-on reference-the
contemnor
instead
of
tendering
un
conditional apology-repeated the entire
history accusing the presiding judgeheld-conduct
of
contemnor
amounts
interference with due course of justice
undermining
the
dignity
of
courtreference
allowed-conviction
of
3
months simple imprisonment with fine of
Rs.20,000/-imposed.

Held: Para 24 & 25

As a result of foregoing discussion, the
reference made to this Court is allowed
and the contemnor Shiv Raj Singh
Chauhan, Advocate is held guilty of
criminal contempt.

We
accordingly
convict
him
under
section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act
and sentence him to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default, it
may be prescribed, contemnor shall
undergo further simple imprisonment for
two weeks. However, the punishment so
imposed shall be kept in abeyance for a
period of sixty days so as to enable the
contemnor to approach the Apex Court if
so advised. It needs hardly be said that
immediately after expiry of sixty days in
case no stay order is furnished by the
contemnor, he would be taken into
custody forthwith to serve out the
sentence immediately.
Case law discussed:
(1991) 4 SCC 406, (1991) 3 SCC 600, 1993 (1)
SCC 529, [1984] 3 SCC 405.

## Text

104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
into just in order to escape to perform
their part of contract and to frustrate
performance of the contract thereby
showing extreme dishonesty and cheating
to the sanctity of the agreement or
contract or sale deeds, which, in fact they
have entered into and received money in
part performance thereof. In the process
of execution of agreements, contract or
sale deed how it could be possible that the
persons executing these documents/deeds
was unaware of the contents or terms and
conditions of the documents/deeds on
which he put his signature or thumb
impression, as the case may be. In most of
the
cases
of
challenging
the
documents/deeds, it is the dishonesty of
the person, who has executed the
agreement to sell, contract or sale deed as
well as it is high degree of cheating and
fraud with the other party. In the present
days, if it is permitted it will create a
chaos in the Banking, finance and other
economic affairs, which may result
irreparable damage to the economy as
well. In the execution of the agreements,
contracts or sale deeds, it is the faith and
confidence of the parties which plays the
important role. If this faith and confidence
in execution of agreements, contracts and
sale deeds is permitted to be shaken, it
will convey very bad indication for the
economy and the promises reduced by
way of these documents. Thus, the
sanctity of agreement must be respected
and preserved.

16. Now a days, it has become a
regular tendency that first enter into an
agreement or a contract in respect of
immovable property or some other
contractual affairs or business with an
ulterior motive and thereafter resile from
the promise made through the agreement
or contract by entering into litigation. It is
a new device invented just in order to get
the execution of terms and conditions
contained in an agreement or contract
frustrated. The person, who has paid the
money or consideration on execution of
an agreement or contract feels cheated
after getting involved in an unexpected
and unsavoury situation of unwanted
litigation so initiated by a dishonest
person. Thus, the primary duty of a Court
of law is to enforce a promise, which the
parties have made and to uphold the
sanctity of a contract or an agreement
entered into between the parties, which
form the basis of a society, though there
may be exception. The Courts must
exercise extreme restraint in holding a
contract or an agreement to be void as it
would encourage dishonesty and cheating.

17. My this view finds support from
the judgment reported in AIR 1959 SC
781, Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas
Maiya.

18. In view of the discussions made
above, no substantial question arises to be
considered in the present Second Appeal.
Accordingly, the Second Appeal is
dismissed. The judgment and decree of
the Lower Appellate court is affirmed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J.
THE HON'BLE S.S. TIWARI, J.

Criminal Contempt Petition No. 11 of 2007

In Re: (Om Prakash Dixit)
...Applicant
Versus
Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan ...Contemnor
1 All] Om Prakash Dixit V. Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan
105
Counsel for the Applicant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Contemnor:
Sri S.S. Upadhyaya

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 2
(c)-Criminal
Contempt-contemnor
a
practicing
advocate
repeated
interference with functioning of Courtthreat in case desired record of the case
not summoned and heard not aware
what would be apposed-on reference-the
contemnor
instead
of
tendering
un
conditional apology-repeated the entire
history accusing the presiding judgeheld-conduct
of
contemnor
amounts
interference with due course of justice
undermining
the
dignity
of
courtreference
allowed-conviction
of
3
months simple imprisonment with fine of
Rs.20,000/-imposed.

Held: Para 24 & 25

As a result of foregoing discussion, the
reference made to this Court is allowed
and the contemnor Shiv Raj Singh
Chauhan, Advocate is held guilty of
criminal contempt.

We
accordingly
convict
him
under
section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act
and sentence him to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months and to
pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default, it
may be prescribed, contemnor shall
undergo further simple imprisonment for
two weeks. However, the punishment so
imposed shall be kept in abeyance for a
period of sixty days so as to enable the
contemnor to approach the Apex Court if
so advised. It needs hardly be said that
immediately after expiry of sixty days in
case no stay order is furnished by the
contemnor, he would be taken into
custody forthwith to serve out the
sentence immediately.
Case law discussed:
(1991) 4 SCC 406, (1991) 3 SCC 600, 1993 (1)
SCC 529, [1984] 3 SCC 405.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza J.)

1. The contempt proceeding in the
instant case has its genesis in the
Reference made by Sri Om Prakash Dixit,
Special Judge, Etawah vide letter dated
19.1.2007 which was duly forwarded by
District Judge vide letter dated 20.1.2007
whereby reference has been made to this
Court
for
initiation
of
contempt
proceeding against the contemnor namely
Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan Advocate Civil
Court Etawah.

2. According to the facts contained
in reference made to this Court, on
12.1.2007 at 10.35 a.m when the Court
was busy recording the statement in a
final enquiry No. 6 F/2006 Stae v. Rakesh
Kumar Saxena, the contemnor advocate
interrupted the proceeding and insisted
with the officer to send for the file and his
case be got called out forthwith. When the
officer asked him to wait for the
proceeding to end, upon which he became
furious and in terrorem, remarked which
if translated into English would read that
perhaps the officer was not aware as to
what would happen if the request of the
contemnor was not immediately attended
to. It is further mentioned in the reference
that again the contemnor came to the
court at 11.20 a.m and perused the order
sheet of Special Case no. 693 of 2004 and
burst out angrily using words couched in
derogatory and undignified language
which if translated in English would
agreeably read that the contemnor had set
right even the most intractable Judges and
the officer stands no where qua them. It is
further mentioned that the contemnor
again came to the court at 12.30 p.m and
moved an application whereupon the
court passed the order thereon. When the
contemnor read the contents of the order,
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
he again became furious and remarked
which if translated in English would
agreeably read that he would make such a
strong complaint that the officer would
remember for all time to come. In the
reference, previous incidents of unruly
conduct of the contemnor in the court of
the then Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Etawah
presided over by Sri Rajiv Kumar,
contained in letter dated 14.11.2003, in
the court of the then Civil Judge (S.D.)
presided over by Sri Pradeep Kumar
Gupta contained in letter dated 5.4.2005,
in the court of then then Addl. District
Judge presided over by Sri S.P.Singh and
also the notice issued to him on 18.8.2006
under section 228 I.;P.C., in the court of
Special Judge (E.C.Act) presided over by
Sri O.P. Dixit vide letter dated 12.1.2007,
in the court of Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.)
presided over by Sri Mohd. Rafi vide
letter dated 16.2.2007, Vigilance Bureau
enquiry no. 28 of 2002 in which notice
was issued by the High Court dated
22.3.2003 and 22.5.2003 and the letter
dated 20.1.2008 written by contemnor to
the High Court in which he has prayed for
not initiating any action on the complaints
against him.

3. On 304.2007, upon a note of the
office the Administrative Judge Etawah
passed the following orders.

"I have seen the report/complaint of
the Special Judge (E.C.Adt) Etawah , note
of the office and other documents on
record.
It appears that the special Judge
(E.C.Act), Etawah was recording the
statement of a witness in a case when Sri
Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, Advocate
entered the court room and interfered
with the judicial proceedings. I have
carefully gone through the record and, in
my opinion, the alleged actions of Sri Shiv
Raj Singh Chauhan, Advocate, can be
defined as 'contempt of court' within the
meaning of section 2 (C ) of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971. Prima facie there is
sufficient material to proceed against him
under the said Act.
Let appropriate proceedings be initiated
against Sri Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan,
Advocate for his alleged acts under the
Contempt of Courts Act."

4. Thereafter, the matter came to be
put up before Hon. Chief Justice and on
25.5.2009 the Chief Justice approved the
opinion of the Administrative Judge.

5. Sri S.S. Upadhaya, learned
counsel appeared for the contemnor and
pleaded for merciful view in the matter.
On being called upon to argue the case on
merit of the case, he referred to
unqualified apology stating that the
contemnor has already tendered the
unqualified apology and prayed for
discharge taking a lenient view further
urging that that the contemnor was fairly
senior having been enrolled as Advocate
in the year 1979 attended with further
submission that he can not be said to be
addicted to using contemptuous language
and making scurrilous attacks nor is there
any previous instance of his showing
disrespect to the court and whatever has
happened in Court was in a spontaneity.
Ultimately, he stated that he should be
given a chance to expiate his unruly
conduct.

6. We are anguished that we have to
deal with a case involving a lawyer again
under the Contempt of Court Act. We
however indicate to ourselves the piece of
advice that the Court while dealing with
contempt matter should not be over or
1 All] Om Prakash Dixit V. Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan
107
hypersensitive and should not exercise
this jurisdiction on any exaggerated
notion of the dignity of the Judges and
must act taking a dispassionate view of
the entire matter. It is the settled
principles that the rule of contempt is not
to be lightly invoked and is not to be used
as a cloak to cow down somebody into
submission on the basis of fancied claim.
It is intended to offer protection to the
court itself or to a party in judicial
proceeding
whose
interest
may
be
affected or the authority of the court is
lowered and the confidence of the people
in the administration of justice is
weakened. At the same time, it should be
borne in mind that the Court is the
protector of public justice and it has a
stake in the dignity and protection of
those who man the court.

7. We would also not flinch from
saying that the apology is not to be used
as a weapon of defence forged always to
be used as a shield to protect the
contemnor as a last resort. It is intended to
be evidence of real contriteness. The
apology, in order to dilute the gravity of
the offence, it has repeatedly been ruled in
catena of decisions, should be voluntary,
unconditional and indicative of remorse
and real contrition and it should be
tendered at the earliest opportunity. We
have to administer caution to ourselves
that we should not be inveigled into
accepting apology from those who are
addicted to using contemptuous language
and making scurrilous attacks and have to
their
discredit,
earlier
instance
of
misfeasance.

8. In the affidavit filed by the
contemnor alongwith application seeking
discharge, the contemnor in para 3 has set
out the life sketch stating that he was
enrolled as Advocate in the year 1979 and
he has never been involved in any
contempt case. In Para 5 of the affidavit,
it is averred that he had drawn attention of
the court that at one time, the officer
should do only one work as at that time,
the Reader was recording statement and
the officer was busy hearing cases. In
paras 7 and 8, he has divulged the details
as to what happened in the matter
resulting
in
launching
of
criminal
proceeding against him. In para 9 and 10,
the contemnor has dwelt upon the details
of the proceeding initiated by the Bar
Council on the basis of complaint. In para
12 of the affidavit, the contemnor has
referred to circular of this Court in which
it is postulated that the statement should
be recorded by the presiding officer and
not by the Reader. In para 13, the
contemnor has alleged that the reference
has been made by the officer with ulterior
motive to harass him. In para 14, it is
averred that in case the Court is of the
opinion that the contemnor is guilty of
contempt
of
Court
Act,
he
seeks
unconditional apology with the assertion
that he will not repeat the alleged
misconduct in future.

9. In the affidavit filed by the
contemnor in reply to the affidavit sworn
by Om Prakash Dixit, the Presiding
officer of the Court, he refuted each and
every allegations levelled against him
stating that the allegations have been
made out of malice and just to malign
him. He has either denied the existence of
any
complaint
imputing
to
him
scandalous acts or tried to explain in
which such complaints or orders were
rendered. In totality, he has alleged that
the presiding officer was prejudiced
towards him and despite all sort of
arrogance and provocations from the side
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
of Presiding officer, he always remained
polite
submissive
and
courteous
honouring the dignity of the court (vide
para 4 of the counter affidavit sworn on
19th Sept 2007).

10. The crux of the entire episode is
that this fact is admitted that while the
court was busy hearing the cases and the
Reader was busy recording the statements
of the witnesses, he interrupted the
proceeding of the court demurring to the
fact that at one time, two proceedings
were going on in the court and that he
also adverted attention of the Presiding
officer to the circular of the High Court in
which it is clearly postulated that the
statement of witnesses should be recorded
in the handwriting of the presiding
officer. The presence of the contemnor at
the time of incident does indicate that he
must have gone there in connection with
his case and he must have interrupted the
proceedings by asking the court to take up
his case as alleged in the reference. Now
the question arises whether the contemnor
could interrupt the proceeding of the court
even if the proceeding of the court
interfered with any direction of the High
court issued on administrative side. It
brooks no dispute that the court was busy
hearing the cases as admitted by the
contemnor himself. Then the question
arises
whether
the
contemnor
was
justified in interfering with the proceeding
which by all reckoning was judicial
proceeding. Even assuming that the court
was acting contrary to the direction issued
by the High Court on administrative side,
it was not open to the contemnor to have
interfered with the judicial proceeding. It
is stated at various places in his affidavit
by the contemnor that he adverted
attention of the court to the directions
contained in circular issued by the High
Court as an officer of the court. The
contemnor is a lawyer and trained in law.
He has certain duties towards the court
bearing in mind the dignity and prestige
of the court. The sequence of events given
by the contemnor itself raises a natural
inference that at the time of incident, the
contemnor must have interrupted the
proceedings of the court and uttered
words as complained of in the Reference.
The contempt becomes graver when the
contemnor is an Advocate- well trained in
law and acquainted with the niceties and
intricacies of legal proceeding and the
aura and majesty of law court. Excepting
this counter affidavit, there is nothing on
record having complexion of an apology
tendered by the contemnor. It is at this
belated
stage
that
the
contemnor
expressed oral apology through his
counsel though he was present. From the
counter affidavit, it leaves no manner of
doubt that the contemnor made all out
efforts to put the blame on the officers
and did not seem to be repentant for his
acts which scandalized the court and
undermined the dignity in the public
estimation.

11. Before we proceed further, we
would like to quip here that 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 which the very
constitutional scheme and public faith in
the judiciary would run the risk of being
eroded. Since the contemnor is an
Advocate, the matter requires to be
considered with a little more seriousness.
An Advocate, we feel called to say, is not
exempt from ordinary disability which the
law imposes and his position is not
inviolable and his privileges cannot
extend to interfere with the administration
1 All] Om Prakash Dixit V. Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan
109
of justice. On the other hand he is
expected to help in sub-serving the course
of justice and not impede it in any
manner. A legal practitioner has no doubt
his duties towards his client but at the
same time he has equally important duty
and obligation upon him to cooperate with
the court in the orderly and pure
administration of justice. Any departure
would be construed to be violative and
neglecting his duties and obligations. A
lawyer is a person educated and trained in
law. The use of language has to be
balanced and in fitness of things within
the framework of the law of the land. He
cannot and should not be reckless in the
use of language. There are barriers which
must be known to a lawyer and it should
not be crossed. He should not overstep the
limits of decency and ethics in the matter
of his behavior towards the court.

12. In Delhi Judicial Service
Association v. State of Gujrat, (1991) 4
SCC 406, the Apex Court held as under.

"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."

13. In N.B. Sanghvi v. High Court
of Punjab and Haryana (1991) 3 SCC
600 the Apex Court observed as under:

"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
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 realise 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
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
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."

14. The precise words attributed to
the contemnor to have been uttered in the
court may be quoted below.

"Abhi Jante Nahi Ho, Shiv Raj Singh
Chauhan Se Kahne Ke Agrah Na Man Ne
Ka Kya Phal Hota Hai"

Thereafter, the contemnor again
came back to the court at 11.20 a.m and
uttered the following words.

"Maine Bade Bade, Jajon Ko Fit Kar
Diya Hai Aap Kya Cheez Hai."

Again, the contemnor is stated to
have returned at 12.30 p.m and uttered the
following words.

"Aise Shikayat Karoonga Ki Jeevan
Bhar Yaad Rakhega."

The contemnor, as would transpire
from the averments made in the affidavit
sworn by him, has denied to have uttered
those words in court and instead,
remorselessly set out his own version
stating that he adverted attention of the
court to the circular issued by the High
Court as the presiding officer was busy
hearing the cases while the Reader of the
Court was recording the statement of the
witnesses. It brooks no dispute that as to
the incident that happened in court, the
version of presiding officer is entitled to
pre-eminence and obvious acceptance and
only in rarest case it may be disregarded.
Nothing has been brought on record to
warrant the belief that the contemnor was
repentant or showed real contriteness at
any stage during the proceeding except at
the last stage of the proceeding when he
expressed his oral apology that too,
through his counsel.

15. The officer namely Om Prakash
Dixit has filed affidavit in which he has
vehemently denied the allegations. He has
also denied that he entertained any
prejudices against the contemnor or that
he made reference against him actuated
by malice against him. He also denied the
allegations that the contemnor was
threatened at any stage as alleged. He also
stated that the contemnor was issued
notice under section 228 Cr.P.C. The
officer has also referred to his aberrant
behaviour indulged in by him in other
courts and has given details of the
proceeding initiated against him.

16. As stated supra, from the
sequence of events, it is quite natural that
he indulged in scurrilous attack. He has
admitted that he drew attention of the
court to the circulars of the High Court
when the court was busy hearing the case.
Although he denied to have uttered the
words attributed to him but in totality of
circumstances, it does appear to us that he
must have uttered those words and in
order to screen himself against possible
action, he as a last resort, tendered
unqualified apology.
1 All] Om Prakash Dixit V. Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan
111
17. The foundation of judicial
system
which
is
founded
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
impurity, the much cherished judicial
independence
which
is
of
vital
significance to any free society has to be
protected not only from the executive or
the legislature but also from those who
are an integral part of the system. The
tendency of browbeating the judicial
officers into submission is on the increase
and when there is deliberate attempt to
scandalise, it not only shakes the
confidence of the litigating public in the
system but causes damages to the
reputation of the presiding judge and
brings disgrace to the fair name of the
judiciary.

18. A Judge or Magistrate has a duty
to discharge his judicial functions and he
passes order in the manner as he likes fit
to the best of his capability in the facts
and circumstances of the case. The courts
cannot be intimidated to seek favourable
orders or to make the court run on his
dictate. In the present case, the conduct of
the contemnor amounts to intimidating
the court and lowering the authority and it
clearly amounts to interference with due
course of judicial proceedings which were
being conducted by the Presiding officer.
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
protect
members
of
the
subordinate
courts.
In
the
above
conspectus, the charge related to criminal
contempt framed against the contemnor is
fully established.

19. In the above conspectus, we
have no hesitation to say that the charges
of criminal contempt established against a
practising lawyer cannot be taken lightly
who carries the trapping of an officer of
the Court whose duty is to assist the Court
and uphold the majesty of law and dignity
of the person manning the court. No
judicial system can tolerate such ignoble
act and conduct of a practising Advocate.
The crucial question that remains is what
would be the appropriate punishment to
the contemnor.

20. In connection with whether the
apology commends itself for acceptance
or not, we may refer to the decision of the
Apex Court in Preetam Pal v. High
Court M.P. 1993 (1) SCC 529 in which
the Apex Court observed 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 is calculated to obstruct
the due course of justice."

21. Reverting to the case in hand, we
are of the firm opinion that the apology
tendered by the contemnor does not exude
bona
fide
or
manifest
genuineness
ostensibly for the reasons that the apology
has been tendered at a stage when the
contemnor sensed that his goose was
cooked. As stated supra, he has set out his
own version referring to various acts of
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
omission
and
commission
by
the
presiding officer and lastly stated that he
has made reference actuated by malice
against him. It is on record that the
contemnor after committing contempt for
the first time at10.35 a.m, returned to the
court at 11.20 and thereafter at 12.30 p.m
and each time, he interrupted the court
proceeding by shouting land uttering
words as quoted above which were not
only disrespectful but manifested his
aggressive behaviour. By his conduct, he
created obstacle in the functioning of the
court which was performing judicial
function and therefore, it leaves no
manner of doubt in our mind that the
conduct of the contemnor interfered with
due course of administration of justice,
undermining the dignity of court. It is in
this conspectus, we feel compelled to say
that the apology submitted by him does
not seem to inspire a real contriteness on
his part but is used as a device to screen
himself from the rigours of law. The Apex
in the aforesaid judgment in M.S. Singhvi
has rightly observed that the incidence of
contempt is ever on the increase. There is
a felt need to curb such incidence. To cap
it all, the majesty and dignity of the court
has to be preserved. It should not be
forgotten that frequent attacks on the
dignity of the courts would shake the very
foundation of the judiciary. The courts
have to perform judicial functions in
responsible yet disagreeable ambiance
and they require utmost protection. The
attack
made
on
presiding
officers
disparaging in character and derogatory to
his/her dignity would vitally shake the
confidence of the public in him/her. The
vitriolic attacks made on the officer were
much more than mere insult and in effect
they scandalized the court in such a way
as to create distrust in the popular mind
and impair confidence of the people in
court. The administration of justice must
remain independent, clean, fearless and
impartial. If an Advocate uses the vile of
browbeating the Presiding officer by his
toxic
vitriolic
attack,
it
is
indeed
disquieting and should not be viewed with
equanimity.

22. In L.D. Jaikwal v. State of
U.P., [1984] 3 SCC 405, the Apex Court
described the apology as a 'paper apology
and refused to accept it in the following
words:

"We do not think that merely because
the appellant has tendered his apology we
should set aside the sentence and allow
him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that
a person wanting to intimidate a Judge by
making the grossest imputations against
him has to do, is to go ahead and
scandalize him, and later on tender a
formal empty apology which costs him
practically nothing. If such an apology
were to be accepted, as a rule, and not as
an exception, we would in fact be virtually
issuing a 'licence' to scandalize courts
and commit contempt of court with
impunity. It will be rather difficult to
persuade members of the Bar, who care
for their self-respect, to join the judiciary
if they are expected to pay such a price
for it. And no sitting judge will feel free to
decide any matter as per the dictates of
his conscience on account of fear of being
scandalized
and
persecuted
by
an
advocate who does not mind making
reckless allegations if the Judge goes
against his wishes. If this situation were
to be countenanced, advocates who can
cow down the Judges, and make them fail
in line with their wishes, by threats of
character assassination and persecution,
will be preferred by the litigants to the
advocates
who
are
mindful
of
1 All] Shami Ullah V. State of U.P.
113
professional
ethics
and
believe
in
maintaining the decorum of courts."

23. In the above perspective, it
cannot be ruled out that the contemnor set
up the entire theory in order to save his
skin. In this view of the matter, the
apology offered does not commend to us
for acceptance and it is turned down.

24. As a result of foregoing
discussion, the reference made to this
Court is allowed and the contemnor Shiv
Raj Singh Chauhan, Advocate is held
guilty of criminal contempt.

25. We accordingly convict him
under section 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act and sentence him to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months
and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In
default, it may be prescribed, contemnor
shall
undergo
further
simple
imprisonment for two weeks. However,
the punishment so imposed shall be kept
in abeyance for a period of sixty days so
as to enable the contemnor to approach
the Apex Court if so advised. It needs
hardly be said that immediately after
expiry of sixty days in case no stay order
is furnished by the contemnor, he would
be taken into custody forthwith to serve
out the sentence immediately.

26. The matter shall be listed before
this Court in the second week of May
2010 for ensuring compliance.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.02.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2174 of 2007

Shami Ullah

...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri A.B. Saran
Sri C.B. Mishra
Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava
Sri Apul Mishra
Sri D.S. Yadav
Sri Kamol Krishna
Sri S.K. Chandel
Sri S.K. Chandra
Sri Sudhir Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri R.C. Tewari
G.A.

Criminal Appeal-offence under section
376/506 IPC and 3 (1)(12) SC/ST Actconviction of 7 years R.I. with fine of
Rs.2000/- victim a 12 years girl-while
returning from guana grove-near the
house
of
appellant-engaged
in
conversation and latter on taken her
fodder room-outraged her modesty by
gagging her mouth-plea of consent-not
available in case of minor-moreover in
absence of eye witness-victim could
have concealed very conventionally so
far delay in lodging FIR-cogent and
sufficient acceptable explanation givenheld-conviction
justified.-appeal
dismissed.

Held: Para 21 & 22

Above view regarding age takes me to
another important aspect of the appeal
that once victim was a minor, her