# State of U.P v. N.B.Singh Advocate

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1407
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-12-22
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, S. V. Singh Rathore
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-n-b-singh-advocate-42036
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Contempt of Court Act-1971-Section 2
(a)-criminal
contempt-containing
a
practicing
lawyer-forcibly
entered
in
chamber
of
A.D.J.-abusing
by
cost
"Chirkut", "Chorkatai" etc. as to how
succession
application
dismissed
in
default-notice
issued
2011-No
unconditional apology tendered at first
opportunity-can not be claimed as a
matter of right-considering grown age of
60 years-apart from 13 years previous
incident-even conduct shows lack of
honest
repentance,
bona
fide
unconditional apology cannot be allowed
unpunished-fine
of
Rs.
2000/-would
meet end of justice

Held: Para 12 and 13

Considering
the
language
which
contemnor has used in the matter and
also the fact that the incident, the
behaviour and the utterances have not
been disputed, we have no hesitation but
to hold that the contemnor Sri N.B. Singh
is guilty of committing criminal contempt
of this Court.
1408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Now the question of our consideration
whether
contemnor's
alleged
unconditional
apology
is
genuine,
deserves
to
be
accepted
without
imposing any punishment or this Court
should punish him suitably in view of
above finding upholding his guilt.
Case law discussed:
(2011) 2 SCC (Crl) 821; 1984 (3) SCC 405

## Text

3 All] State of U.P. V. N.B.Singh Advocate
1407

47. On the basis of above analysis
and after considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the
legal position, we hereby allow all the
writ petitions and quash the judgment and
order of the learned Tribunal dated
28.7.2009 as well as all the other
impugned judgments of learned Tribunal
and direct the State Government to
communicate the entries to the concerned
government servants with liberty to them
to make representation to the higher
authorities within period of two months,
which would consider and decide the
same in accordance with law within a
further period of two months and
thereafter follow up action would be taken
by the competent authorities within period
of further two months in accordance with
law.

48. Considering the background of
present case, we hereby direct the Chief
Secretary to State Government of U.P. to
issue appropriate Government Order/
Circular for communication of all the
entries (whether poor, fair, average, good
or very good) to all the state employees as
per dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as
laid down in paras 36 & 37 of case of Dev
Dutt vs. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC
725, with a further provision for making
representation to the higher authorities
and if necessary, appropriate amendment
be made in U. P. Government Servants
(Disposal of the representation against
adverse annual confidential reports &
allied matters) Rules, 1995.

49. All the Writ Petitions stand
allowed accordingly.

50. Registrar of this Court is
directed to transmit a copy of this
judgment & order to the Chief Secretary
to State Government of U.P, Lucknow for
its necessary compliance.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.
THE HON'BLE S. V. SINGH RATHORE,J.

Contempt No. - 634 of 2001

State of U.P.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
N.B.Singh Advocate
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Govt. Advocate (Reference)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.K. Mehrotra
Sri N.S. Chauhan

Contempt of Court Act-1971-Section 2
(a)-criminal
contempt-containing
a
practicing
lawyer-forcibly
entered
in
chamber
of
A.D.J.-abusing
by
cost
"Chirkut", "Chorkatai" etc. as to how
succession
application
dismissed
in
default-notice
issued
2011-No
unconditional apology tendered at first
opportunity-can not be claimed as a
matter of right-considering grown age of
60 years-apart from 13 years previous
incident-even conduct shows lack of
honest
repentance,
bona
fide
unconditional apology cannot be allowed
unpunished-fine
of
Rs.
2000/-would
meet end of justice

Held: Para 12 and 13

Considering
the
language
which
contemnor has used in the matter and
also the fact that the incident, the
behaviour and the utterances have not
been disputed, we have no hesitation but
to hold that the contemnor Sri N.B. Singh
is guilty of committing criminal contempt
of this Court.
1408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Now the question of our consideration
whether
contemnor's
alleged
unconditional
apology
is
genuine,
deserves
to
be
accepted
without
imposing any punishment or this Court
should punish him suitably in view of
above finding upholding his guilt.
Case law discussed:
(2011) 2 SCC (Crl) 821; 1984 (3) SCC 405

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.)

1.

This
criminal
contempt
proceeding has arisen on a reference made
by Sri Sheetal Singh, the then Incharge
District Judge, Raebareli forwarding copy
of complaint of Sri A.K. Srivastava, the
then IIIrd Additional District Judge,
Raebareli
about
misbehaviour,
misdemanor and abuse by N.B. Singh,
Advocate, the contemnor.

2. The facts as discerned from the
report of the complainant namely the third
Additional District Judge, Raebareli in
brief are as under.

3. In a matter relating to succession
certificate, the contemnor moved an
application seeking time for approaching
appropriate Court for transfer of the case.
The application was allowed and time was
granted.
Thereafter
the
matter
was
adjourned on several occasions. On
7.11.1998,
the
contemnor
and
his
companion lawyers forcefully entered the
chamber of IIIrd Additional District Judge
inquiring as to why misc. case relating
disposal of succession was put on an
earlier date and dismissed in default of
appearance. The presiding officer claimed
to
have
explained
the
things
but
contemnor continued to shout and raised
slogans "SRIVASTAVA MURDABAD",
"CHORKAT" and "CHORKATAI". It is
said that aforesaid conduct of contemner
and his companion lawyers of creating
nuisance and hampering judicial working
amounts to willful criminal contempt of
Court and the proceedings be initiated
against the erring lowers.

4. Initially this matter was placed
before a Division Bench at Allahabad
wherefrom it was transferred to this
Court, pursuant to Division Bench order
dated 3rd March, 1999 since district
Raebareli comes within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Bench.

5. The matter when taken up today,
an application supported by an affidavit
has been filed by contemnor, Sri N.B.
Singh,
Advocate
through
Sri
A.S.
Chaudhary, Advocate.

6. The learned counsel for the
contemnor at the outset stated that
misdemeanor and misbehavior on the part
of the contemnor cannot be justified and
hence he is tendering unconditional
apology for the aforesaid incident which
took place 13 years back. He further
undertake to maintain good behavior in
future. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel
for contemnor has placed reliance on the
Apex Court's decision O.P. Sharma and
others Vs. High Court of Punjab and
Haryana (2011) 2 SCC (Crl) 821 and
submitted that contemnor at the first
opportunity has extended apology which
should be accepted. This Court must show
magnanimity in this matter and should
drop the proceedings. The fact that at the
first
opportunity
this
unconditional
apology is being tendered which shows
bonafide and honest repentance on the
part of contemnor. He thus prayed that his
undertaking be accepted and the contempt
notice be discharged.
3 All] State of U.P. V. N.B.Singh Advocate
1409

7. We have heard the learned
Counsel and perused the record.

8. It is really unfortunate that the
contemnor who is a practicing Advocate
of district Raebareli had a long standing
even 13 years ago since his age is shown
today as 60 years. Having failed to
persuade
learned
Additional
District
Judge, he switched gear to derogatory
remarks,
abusive
language
from
persuasive advocacy, may be in that hope
that such tactic would succeed. To his
utter dismay, not only he failed but the
learned Judge made of a stern stuff, not
only
refused
to
succumb
such
unprofessional conduct but made a record
of disrespectful, abusive and derogatory
language
used
by
contemnor
with
intention to tarnish his image as Judicial
Officer and forwarded report to the
District Judge who in turn reported the
matter to this Court to initiate appropriate
proceedings.

9. Words uttered by contemnor no
doubt show his clear intention of casting
aspersions on learned Judge and lower
him in the esteem of others. He intended
to
create
doubt
regarding
judicial
impartiality, independence and honesty of
the learned Judge. This tendency of a
Member of Bar is really unfortunate and
needs to be nipped in the bud. A Member
of noble legal profession is not expected
to resort such cheap gimmicks. It is really
painful. An attempt to scandalise not only
reputation of the Judge but in the
consequence the entire institution needs
be deprecated in the strongest words. Use
of abusive language, abrasive behaviour,
veiled
threats
and
some
times
condemnatory verbal attack like the
present one raise larger issues touching
reputation and independence of not only
the individual Judge but the entire
institution. If such an attitude is pardoned
in a lighter way, it may give a wrong
massage. If disparaging and derogatory
remarks made by such impertinent person
are shown any leniency, it may shake the
very confidence of people in the system.
Independent and bold judiciary is in
essence a need of the time. The members
of legal profession, in order to seek small
gains, if endeavor to this extent, it shall
betray a lack of respect for those who
have fought for independence of judiciary
and have made it to see light of this day.

10. The contemnor claims that he
rendered apology at the first opportunity.
This matter is pending since 2001 and
after service of notice the contemnor put
in appearance for the first time on 20th
July, 2001. He has taken more than 10
years in submitting alleged unconditional
apology claiming it to be at the earliest
opportunity.

11. Can it be said to be honest and
bonafide apology showing repentance in
the conduct of contemnor or a mere
shallow and hollow attempt on his part to
wriggle out the clutches of law. He has
shown, admittedly, a conduct which is
highly disrespectful to the institution of
justice, though the utterances are in
respect to an individual member of a
judicial institution. It is not unworthy to
reiterate that a Court of Majesty or the
High Court is sacrosanct. The integrity
and sanctity of institution which has been
bestowed upon itself the responsibility of
dispensing
justice
is
ought
to
be
maintained at all cost. Judges, advocates
and staff of the court all constitute part of
this system. They are supposed to act in
accordance with morals and ethics. An
advocate's professional conduct is as
1410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
important as of a Judge. He has serious
and important responsibility towards
society and in particular to the institution
of justice. He plays a vital role in the
preservation of society and justice system.
He is under an obligation to uphold the
rule of law. He must ensure that the
justice system enabled to function at its
potential. He should be dignified in his
dealings to the Court. He must believe
that the legal profession has an element of
service. He has a social duty to be a
model for the people and to show them a
beacon of light by his conduct, actions
and utterances. Unfortunately, the conduct
of contemnor fails in all these respects
which shows that the contemnor has not
preserved professional ethics and moral as
also his duties towards Court in correct
perspective. We can not loose sight of the
fact
that
subordinate
courts
are
functioning
in
a
very
different
atmosphere, charged, tense and full of
extraordinary work load. They are reeling
under huge pendency of court cases. Most
of the Judges are working for long hours
and have no time virtually to raise their
neck.
The
working
atmosphere
in
subordinate courts is quite unfavourable
yet we must give due credit to Presiding
Officers in discharging their duties
diligently
and
untirelessly.
The
subordinate judiciary forms the backbone
of administration of justice. This Court,
exercising administrative and supervisory
powers, is under an obligation to ensure
that the Judges of the subordinate courts
are not subjected to scrupulous and
indecent attacks or anything which lowers
or has tendency to lower their authority.
No affront to the Majesty of Justice of law
can be permitted. The fountain cannot be
allowed to be polluted by disgruntled
elements. No one can be allowed to
terrorise
or
intimidate
Judges
of
subordinate courts. This is basic and
fundamental. A civilized system of
administration of justice can neither
permit nor tolerate it.

12. Considering the language which
contemnor has used in the matter and also
the fact that the incident, the behaviour
and the utterances have not been disputed,
we have no hesitation but to hold that the
contemnor Sri N.B. Singh is guilty of
committing criminal contempt of this
Court.

13. Now the question of our
consideration
whether
contemnor's
alleged unconditional apology is genuine,
deserves to be accepted without imposing
any punishment or this Court should
punish him suitably in view of above
finding upholding his guilt.

14. In L.D. Jaikwal Vs. State of
U.P. 1984 (3) SCC 405 the Court
observed that acceptance of an apology
from a contemnor should only be a matter
of exception and not that of a rule. Any
other view may be treated by scrupulous
persons as licence to scandalise courts and
commit contempt of court with impunity
and
whenever
the
proceedings
are
initiated, tender apology and escape from
punitive liability. It may also hamper
confidence of the Judges of subordinate
courts and may have the effect of
demoralizing them. This situation cannot
be countenanced else it may damage the
very foundation of system.

15. In order to stress his case,
learned counsel for the contemnor has
relied upon the decision rendered in the
case of O.P. Sharma (supra) but we find
therein that when matter was pending
before High Court, the unconditional
3 All] Ram Chandra V. Board of Revenue and others
1411
apology was tendered and thereafter the
contemnors also appeared before the
Magistrate concerned and expressed their
regret
and
tendered
unconditional
apology. Even thereafter the High Court
after convicting contemnors imposed
punishment of simple imprisonment of six
months/three months with a fine of rupees
one thousand to rupees two thousand
each. There the incident took place in
1999 and the High Court decided the
matter in 2004. During very this period
the contemnors had already tendered
unconditional apology therein. In the
present case, contemnor had put in
appearance before this Court for the first
time on 20th July, 2001 but did not show
any repentance to his conduct by filing his
response or affidavit etc. The order-sheet
shows that the matter was adjourned since
his counsel was not present and the Court
was constrained to direct for his personal
appearance. This order was passed on
29th September, 2011 and despite thereto
the contemnor remained absent. On the
next date i.e. 21th November, 2011 when
again this Court directed for his personal
appearance, it
is
only
thereto the
contemnor is present today and has filed
affidavit.

16. In view of the facts and
circumstances, as discussed above, we are
of the view that the contemnor's conduct
show lack of honest repentance and
bonafide
in
tendering
unconditional
apology and, therefore, we are not
satisfied that the same should be accepted
so as to not impose any punishment upon
him and let him go unpunished. Having
held him guilty of committing contempt
but
considering
the
fact
that
the
contemnor is now in advance age of 60
years and the incident is 13 years old, the
ends of justice would meet by imposing
punishment of fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

17. We order accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI,J.

Misc. Single No. - 1003 of 1994

Ram Chandra

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue and others

 ...Respondnets

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.P. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Code of Civil Procedure-Order 47 rule 1scope
of
review-explained-while
exercising power-no authority to inter
into merit of case except on limited
grounds given in statute-however at the
time
of
deciding
reference
non
consideration-of public utility-order not
sustainable-matter
remitted
back
to
decide
fresh
in
light
of
judgment
observation.

Held: Para 10

However, this fact is also to be taken
note of that the Additional Commissioner
while
passing
the
order
dated
15.05.1992
had
not
considered
the
relevant provisions of Section 132 (c)(vi)
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Section 29C of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953, which are very much necessary for
proper adjudication of the claim of the
petitioner. As such, although, I do not
agree with the finding given in the
impugned order, however, in the interest
of justice I find it necessary that the