Sri Swami Nath Yadav and ors. Vs. Contemners - Court Judgment

1. This common Judgment disposes of Criminal Contempt Case Nos. 16 of 1999 & 19 of 1999 which were initiated by us vide our order dated 24-3-1999, which reads thus :-

Sri S.S. Nimesh. I/C District Judge, Azamgarh sent letter dated March 15, 1999 to the Registrar of this Court which reads thus :-

It is to be brought to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Court that today at 11.30 A.M. when I was on the dais and delivered judgment in Sessions Trial No. 377 of 1986 State v. Basudeo and others under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. of Police Station Ataraulia District Azamgarh Sri Swami Nath Yadav advocate along with his Juniors Sri Shivdutta Yadav, Prabodh Yadava, Rajkumar Yadava & Sorakh entered the Court-room and became hot-tempered. After delivery of Judgment, I went in my Chamber. Swami Nath Advocate and his juniors followed me in my Chamber and when my Reader Sri Bechu Ram requested them not to enter the Chamber in violent manner and to get pacified, Sri swami Nath and his juniors forcibly dragged my Reader hurling abuses and entered the Chamber, where they tried to throttle me, pressing my throat by hands in presence of my P.A. Sri Shiv Shanker Maurya and the orderly peon Sri Paras Nath who intervened in the matter and then anyhow my life could be saved.

Sri Swami Nath and his juniors crossed the limit of violence and they forcibly took away the original judgment of the aforesaid Sessions Trial from the custody of my Reader, copy of which is available with the Reader. This way, today Sri Swami Nath and his juniors took the law in hands.

It is, therefore, requested that the aforesaid facts may kindly be placed before the Hon'ble Court and in the said violent circumstances the safety and security of the Judicial Officers and the members of the staff of Azamgarh Judgeship be ensured and necessary action against the culprits may be taken.

Submitted for immediate action.

Yours faithfully,

(S.S. Nimesh),

I/C District Judge, Azamgarh.

This matter has been placed before us by the office pursuant to the following order dated 23-3-1999 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice :-

Let the matter be placed before the Bench presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Roy. It is expected that considering the gravity of the situation the matter would be dealt with as an urgent one.

The facts reported to by Sri Nimesh speak for themselves.

We are thus, prima-facie of the view that the Advocates aforementioned have committed grossest criminal contempt of Court not only once but twice (i) Firstly when Sri Nimesh after delivery of the judgment at 11.30 A.M. of 15th March, 1999 (sic went) to his Chamber despite being told by his Reader Bechu Ram not to enter the Chamber and forcibly dragging him and hurling abuses and subsequently forcibly taking away the original judgment from his custody and (ii) Secondly when they tried to throttle Sri Nimesh in his chambers by pressing his throat by hands in presence of his P.A. Sri Shiv Shanker Maurya and the orderly peon Sri Paras Nath who had intervened and then his life could be saved any how.

It is well known that Bar is another wheel of the chariot called administration of justice. The members of the Bar are described as officers of the Court. If the officers of the Court behave in such a way what will happen to the administration of justice?

Accordingly, exercising our powers as a Court of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, we call upon the aforementioned Advocates to show cause as to why they should not be held guilty of committal of criminal contempt?, and if we come to a conclusion ultimately that they are guilty of committal of criminal contempt why they be not punished suitably?, apart from reporting their conduct to the U.P. State Bar Council for taking appropriate disciplinary action against them.

We also issue notice to the State of U.P. through its Chief Secretary as to what action it intends to take to prevent recurrence of such incident in future concerning the Judicial Officers of this State and particularly in regard to the Judicial Officers of the Azamgarh Judgeship and their staff.

We also request the Advocate General of the State to assist us.

From the materials on the record it appears that by launching a First Information Report by Sri Nimesh the criminal laws have already been set in motion against the Advocates aforementioned and thus we, for the present, do not consider expedient to pass any further order in regard to them except those already mentioned as above.

The Rule is made returnable at 10 A.M. of Tuesday dated the 6th April, 1999.

We are making clear that the contemners are also required to be present personally at 10 A.M., along with their show cause, if any.

Let notices issue forthwith to the contemners and be served on them through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh or in his absence through any one holding his charge.

The office is also directed to serve a copy of this order forthwith in the office of the Advocate General of the State.

Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J.

Sd/- M.C. Jain, J.

2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh reported that notices of these proceedings were served on Sarvsri Swami Nath Yadav, Shiv Dutt Yadav, and R.K. Yadav through the Police Station and on the remaining two through Sri Swami Nath Yadav, Sr. Advocate.

3. On 6th April, 1999, the contemners were produced by the police authority. Sri D.N. Wali an aged Advocate of this Court, came up with a prayer for adjournment on the ground that he is going to appear on behalf of the contemners by filing their Vakalatnama and will file the show cause after obtaining certain documents which are being considered necessary to prepare an effective show cause, which the contemners could not obtain earlier on account of being lodged in jail. We accordingly adjourned these proceedings to May 6, 1999.

4. On 6th may, 1999 the contemners filed an application for deferring the hearing of these proceedings raising a preliminary objection that as proviso to Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 says that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to be committed in respect of Court subordinate to it where such a contempt is a punishable offence under Indian Penal Code and the allegations made in the First Information Report as well as the Report submitted to the Registrar clearly makes out an offence, if committed, punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Police is to investigate that F.I.R. and submit its report and eventually the contemners would face a trial in the Sessions Court and if this Court holds them guilty of contempt it will effect the fairness of investigation and trial and the defence of the accused will be seriously prejudiced and, thus, they reserve their right to file their defence/explanation after adjudication of the preliminary question raised. The said application was put up by the office on 7th May, 1999. On 7th May, 1999, Sri D.N. Wali, learned counsel for the contemners, prayed for deferring the hearing of these proceedings by raising this preliminary objection.

We told him that it not being the case of the contemners that the acts of contempt alleged by Sri Nimesh are offences punishable as contempt under the Indian Penal Code, therefore, there is no substance in his preliminary objection.

However, since the application dated 6th May, 1999 was not supported by any affidavit of the contemners, the proceeding was adjourned to 14th May, 1999 for passing further orders on the aforementioned application, if the defect aforementioned is removed.

5. On 14th may, 1999 Sri Wali filed his Vakalatnama in Contempt Case No. 19 of 1999 also. He also filed an affidavit to support the application dated 6th May, 1999 asserting that a copy of the First Information Report has been appended as Annexure-1. He also proceeded to make further arguments in support of the preliminary objection.

We drew his attention to the direct pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Reddy v. State of Madras A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 149 which supported our view that there is no substance in his preliminary objection.

We also told him that the document appended as Annexure-1 to the Affidavit is not a First Information Report.

Sri Wali then showed a plain copy of the First Information Report dated 15th March, 1999 of Crime Case No. 383 of 1999, P.S. Kotwali, District Azamgarh, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 353, 332, 307 and 395 I.P.C. read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Sri Wali reiterated that under proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Court we lacked jurisdiction to initiate these proceedings. Sri Wali took up a stand that his objection is supported by two un-reported decisions of our Court.

We asked him to cite them. He then replied that the reference of these cases are not known to him, rather he had heard about them and, thus, cannot give details thereof.

We adjourned the further hearing of these contempt proceedings to 21st May, 1999 giving the conternners one more chance to file their show cause, if they really intend to contest these proceedings on merit.

6. On 21st May, 1999 the contemners again filed petitions for deferring the hearing of the proceedings awaiting the report of the police in the Case Crime in question or in the alternative to refer the premiminary question to a larger Bench of nine Judges hearing a contempt proceeding of the same nature for the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavits.

One of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.) being a member of that 9 Judges Bench asked Mr. Wali as to how the nature of these proceedings is same to that which was being heard by the nine Judges' Bench which fact has also not been stated in the petition.

Sri Wali then took up a stand that the petitions filed earlier as well as today are not being pressed, but having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances including the fact that despite their best endeavours the contemners have not been able to obtain certain documents, one last indulgence be granted to them to file their show cause giving an undertaking on their behalf that they shall do so positively by 2nd July, 1999.

Accordingly, the petitions aforementioned were dismissed as not pressed and believing the sincerity of the undertaking of Sri Wali the proceedings were adjourned to 9th July, 1999 giving time till 2nd July, 1999 to the contemners to file their show cause with a further direction to the office that if the show cause is filed by 2nd July, 1999, in that event it will send a copy thereof to Sri S.S. Nimesh, the then Incharge District Judge, Azamgarh, who on receipt thereof, if he so likes, may file his reply thereto- consolidated and/or separate. The office was also further directed to serve a copy of reply of Sri Nimesh on Sri Wali as well as the learned Government Advocate Sri Jagdish Tiwary assisting the Court. We also noted in our order that the Chief Secretary of the State will file his affidavit stating categorically in regard to the steps which were taken by the State earlier as well as what action the State of U.P. intends to take to prevent recurrence of such incidents in future concerning the Judicial Officers of the State, Particularly, the Judicial Officers of the Judgeship of Azamgarh and their staff after issuance of the directions by this Court vide its order dated 24th March, 1999 and we adjourned these proceedigs to 23rd July, 1999.

7. On 30th June, 1999, each of the contemners filed this show cause.

8. The show cause of the Contemner No. 1 Sri Swami Nath Yadav, Aged about 53 years, is the regrets and with profound respect threw himself at the mercy of the Court and offer unqualified apology; he has put in about 23 years of practice as an Advocate in the District of Azamgarh and he never misbehaved in any Court; he is ashamed of himself and feels very sorry for his uncalled for behaviour and begged to be excused; he assures this Court that he will never give any cause of annoyance to any Court in future; in view of the full facts and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit it will be expendient in the interest of justice to accept the unqualified apology and the notice of contempt be discharged otherwise not only he, but his parents, wife and children would be put to great hardship and would suffer irreparable loss and injury. In his affidavit he stated that he has been advised to state certain facts which led to an incident in the Court which may not be taken as a conditional apology, which if taken into consideration it may be that this Court may take a very lenient view of the matter viz. Sri Nimesh, who is in habit of consuming alcohol, sits in Court under influence of alcohol, who was biased with him; in Sessions Trial No. 377 of 1986 under Sections 302/34, 394, 323/34 I.P.C., P.S. Atraulia, District Azamgarh State v. Basudeo and Ors. in which he is a counsel for the Informant, pending in the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge even though evidence was concluded long time back in which there was a dying declaration as well as statement of an injured witness and the crime was committed in broad day light in relation to which the F.I.R. was lodged promptly, the accused persons wanted to argue the case before some Additional Sessions Judge for obvious reasons; when Sri Nimesh took over charge as Ist Additional Sessions Judge the accused persons became eager to get the trial decided by him; on 22-2-1999 the date fixed for arguments, a discussion took place between him (the contemner) and Sri Nimesh that it would be proper that the case be sent to the District Judge on which certain remarks were passed by Sri Nimesh, who without paying any heed to his request and without hearing the arguments of either parties mentioned in the order-sheet of that day that the parties have been heard and fixed 11-3-1999 for judgment; he requested and required Sri Nimesh to refer this trial to the District Judge but he lost his temper and misbehaved with him; thus, left with no option he moved a Transfer Application (copy of which and the affidavit attached thereto appended as Annexures-1 and 2) on 4-3-1999 before the District judge Sri B.N. Pandey bringing to his notice the fact of habit of Sri Nimesh consuming alcohol and sitting in Court under influence thereof, the District Judge was also informed of the same by other members of the Bar; the District Judge assured that he would send his report to this Court; it is not known, however, as to whether such a communication was made by the District Judge; on 4th March, 1999 the Incharge Sessions Judge, Sri Mathur ordered the Transfer Petition 'Put up tomorrow for hearing and disposal', on 5th March, 1999 arguments were heard by the District Judge Sri B.N. Pandey who by order dated 5-3-1999 (copy appended as Annexure-3) called for comments from Sri Nimesh by 10-3-1999 fixing for hearing and disposal of the Transfer Petition; Sri Nimesh, submitted his comments; the District Judge, after going through his comments and further hearing him (the contemners) vide his order dated 10-3-1999 called for a report from Sri Nimesh as to whether he has got any objection to the transfer of the Sessions Trial in question directing to put up the matter on 12th April, 1999; the aforesaid order was received on 10-3-1999 itself in the office of Sri Nimesh who, however, did not send any report to the District Judge rather on that Transfer Application passed orders to put it up before his successor for disposal and that it will be for the Presiding Officer (him) to deliver Judgment or not; on 11-3-1999 he fixed 15-3-1999 for delivery of the Judgment; on 15-3-1999 Anwar Sadat Son of deceased Sheikh Jokhu filed an application (copy appended as Annexure-IV) in his Court praying to transfer the proceedings of the Sessions Trial and for fixing some other date on the ground that the Transfer Application is pending before the District Judge, which if decided against him, he would approach this Court for transfer to some other Court; after receiving the aforesaid application, which was moved by the contemner No. 1, Sri Nimesh lost his temper and started misbehaving with him and the other contemners under influence of alcohol and rejected the same and started shouting call the accused persons of the Sessions Trial, Sri Nimesh delivered Judgment acquitting the accused persons and retired to his chambers using very filthly language; at that stage heated arguments took place in open Court; Sri Nimesh also shouted that the Police be called and these persons should be arrested; the contemners never went to his Chambers; the contemners Sri Swami Nath Yadav and Sri Shiv Dutt Yadav immediately left the Court and went to the Civil Bar Association and informed its President and Secretary about the facts which had happened in Court; thereafter a resolution was passed (copy appended as Annexure-V) by the Civil Bar Association, the proceedings of which had started at 11:45 A.M., resolving that the Court of Sri Nimesh, Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, should be boycotted till he is not transferred and the report dated 15-3-1999 of this contemner (Sri Swami Nath Yadav) may be sent to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court for taking action and that till Sri Nimesh is transferred his work should be allotted to some other Court for which a request may be made to the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of this Court and copies of the resolution be sent to the District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police and other officials; at 3:30 P.M. on the same day, i.e. 15-3-1999 an emergent meeting was held in the District Bar Association, Azamgarh and it was resolved (copy appended as Annexure-VI) that the report of this contemner (Sri Swami Nath Yadav) has not been registered and the District authority may be requested to get Sri Nimesh medically examined without delay so that correct facts be ascertained and that all the Courts be boycotted next day and a copy of which be sent to the Hon'ble The Chief Justice and other high Court officials; Sri Nimesh sent a First Information Report (copy appended as Annexure-VII) to Police Station Kotwali, which was registered at 1:00 P.M. on 15-3-1999 and chick report (copy appended as Annexure-VIIA) was also entered; thereafter Sri Nimesh sent the reference under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 of which this Court took cognizance and issued notice to the contemners; one incident has been split by this court in two parts (a) snatching the Judgment and pushing Bechu Ram, Reader of the Court, in violent manner and the contemners dragged his Reader hurling abuses and entered in the Chamber of Sri Nimesh and (b) the contemners tried to throttle Sri Nimesh by pressing his throat by his hand in presence of his P.A. and orderly Paras Nath who intervened in the matter and saved the life of Sri Nimesh; narration of facts by Sri Nimesh in his report is against that narration as given in the first Information Report and in this regard the order-sheet (copy appended as Annexures-VIII and VIIIA) duly signed by Sri Nimesh are also relevant which is in three parts, which reads thus :- 15-3-1999 - 12-A Kha, Adjournment application moved by counsel for the complainant rejected. Order sheet duly signed by Presiding Officer Sri Nimesh, on mention of any incident; 15-3-1999.

Second order on ordersheet by which he acquitted the accused by passing the Judgment in Session Trial No. 377/86 under Sections 302/34, 394, 323/34 IPC and discharged the sureties. This order sheet is duly signed by Presiding Officer and also by the accused persons and there is not a whisper in the order sheet that any incident took place (c) Thereafter he passed 3rd order on the order sheet which has been duly signed by him in which he has stated that at that time Sri Swami Nath Yadav and his juniors who are named therein climbed on the Dais hurling abuses and shouting, Presiding Officer retired to his chamber and during intervention Judgment was snatched from the Reader, and entered in retiring room and misbvehaved with Presiding Officer. Photo copy of all the orders sheet duly signed by Presiding Officer dated 15-3-1999 is hereby annexed as Annexure-VIII to this affidavit and its typed copy as Annexure-VIIIA to this affidavit; it is pertinent to mention that it is not clear as to who wrote the last order-sheet in which the allegation of misbehaviour and snatching of Judgment is mentioned as its plain reading would show conclusively that it was not written by Sri Nimesh; that Sri Nimesh does not have a good reputation, wherever he was posted it was well known that he sits in Court under influence of alcohol; in 1995 or 1996 when he was posted as VIIIth Additional District Judge at Meerut, under the influence of alcohol he had attempted to commit rape on Smt. Beena Wife of Gabbar Singh, whose report was not taken by the Police despite her best efforts, and then one retired Judge of this court had to forward her complaint to this Court, on which a preliminary enquiry was held and a prima facie case was found against Sri Nimesh and he was suspended; in the mean time Smt. Beena was pressurised and compelled to withdraw her complaint, which she did as a result of which enquiry against Sri Nimesh was dropped and he was reinstated but with stoppage of certain increments; a news item was published in Azamgarh in a local News Paper published under the name and style Azamgarh Parikrama dated 8-11-1998 (copy appended as Annexure-X) that Sri Nimesh under influence of alcohol had committed sodomy on a boy who happens to be the son of a clerk of a lawyer about which the members of the Bar, the President and the Secretary of the Bar Association, Azamgarh informed the then District Judge Sri B.N. Pandey, who assured the delegatees that he will inform this incident to the registry of this Court confidentially requesting them not to agitate this matter further as it would bring very bad reputation to the judiciary and so the matter was not agitated further; on 15-12-1998 one Ram Pal Tiwari, an accused under Sections 376/120B I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 783 of 1997 did not appear, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him after cancelling his Bail Bonds fixing 21-1-1999, but did not appear on 21-1-1999 and the trial was fixed for 22- 3-1999 the aforesaid accused filed a Surrender Application and Bail Application on which Sri Nimesh directed to take him in custody by passing his orders on the margin of the Surrender Application and on the same date a Bail Order was typed on the back of the Bail Application, but for the obvious reason it was subsequently scored off and according to the order sheet dated 1-2-1999 (copy appended as Annexure-XIV) those applications were directed to be put up on the date fixed that is 23-3-1999, copies of which are annexed as Annexures- XI, XII, XIII respectively; even though an order was passed by Sri Nimesh that the accused Sri Tiwari be taken in custody, but the real fact is that he was never taken in custody and was not sent to Jail on that particular date an enquiry is requested to be made by this Court to draw certain obvious inferences against Sri Nimesh, his P.A. and Peshkar; Sri C.P. Singh, Advocate, on 3-2-1999 sent a registered letter (copy appended as Annexure-IX) informing Hon'ble The Chief Justice that Sri Nimesh is sitting under the influence of alcohol and is disposing of cases and that his staff (P.A. Shiv Shanker Maurya, Peshkar- Bechu Ram) are taking undue advantage and an enquiry be held.

In their show cause contemner Nos. 2 and 3 Probodh Kumar Yadav and Sorakh Yadav stated that they regret and with profound respect throw themselves at the mercy of the Court and offer unqualified apology; that they are ashamed of themselves and feel sorry for their uncalled for behaviour and begged to be excused ; that they assure that they will never give any chance of annoyance to any Court in future; that their unqualified apology and the notices be discharged otherwise their parents, wives and children would be put to great hardship and would suffer irreparable loss and injury; that they have put in about 4-5 years of practice; that they are not junior of Sri Swami Nath Yadav, Advocate nor had they any concern with the Sessions Trial in question; that they had not gone to the Court of Sri Nimesh on 15-3-1999; that under some confusion their names have been mentioned in the Reference; that they have practically no practice in the Judgeship of Azamgarh; and that they are sure that if they are put up for identification, Sri Nimesh would not be able to identify them and the Chief Judicial Magistrate be directed to conduct a test identification parade.

10. Contemner Nos. 4 and 5 Shiv Dutt Yadav and Raj Kumar Yadav in their show cause reitered almost word to word what has been stated in the show cause of Contemner No. 1 except pointing out that the former has put in practice of 9 years and the latter of 12-13 years.

11. Copies of the show cause were sent by the office to Sri Nimesh at Orai where he was transferred as III Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai.

12. On 23rd July, 1999, we had to adjourn the hearing of the proceedings as Sri Nimesh came up with a prayer to grant him time to file his reply/comments to the show cause of the contemners. Sri Jagdish Tiwari, the learned Government Advocate, stated before us that in terms of the directions issued the Government has deputed one and a half dozen force under the command of the District Judge to prevent the recurring of the alleged incident in question. We reminded the learned Government Advocate that the Chief Secretary of the State was required to file his affidavit, but no such affidavit was filed, thus, it be filed positively before the proceedings are taken up on the adjourned date. We also directed our office to call for a report from all the District Judges of the State in regard to adequacy of the Police force put under their command as well as correctness or otherwise of the stand taken by the State of Uttar Predesh before us.

13. Sri Nimesh filed his Reply Affidavit on 11-8-1999 stating, inter alia, therein that since the contemners had made quite reckless, false and scathy allegations through affidavits it will be necessary to controvert them; on 15th March, 1999 he was sitting as the Presiding Officer in Court and transacting proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 377 of 1986 in which the contemners Sri Swami Nath Yadav and his juniors were the counsel from the informant side; vide paragraph 4 of his affidavit Sri Swami Nath Yadav had admitted his act of committing contempt unequivocally while stating that he is ashamed of himself and feels very sorry for his uncalled for behaviour and begged to be excused, who in paragraph 6 of his affidavit had assured in clearest terms that he will never give any cause of annoyance to any Court in future yet for the reasons best known to him he has chosen to make quite false and reckless allegations against the deponent; the deponent has been impartial without any exception and has never demonstrated any indulgence to any particular lawyer or litigants, his orders and judgments have with full probity and the allegation against him that he was biased with the contemners is not accepted nor admitted; nothing was placed on the record to sustain a reckless allegation that when the deponent took over charge as Sessions Judge, Azamgarh the accused persons became eager to get the trial decided by him; the order-sheet dated 11-3-1999 speaks for itself the truth which were passed after hearing the counsel; it is not the version of the contemners that there was any order staying and/or restraining further proceedings of the Sessions Trial on 11th March, 1999; the allegation made by the contemner Sri Swami Nath Yadav are afterthoughts which do no hold water on the face of factual and legal position stated by the deponent earlier, the contemner Sri Swami Nath Yadav has made quite an irresponsible and mischievously false statement that the deponeent is in habit of consuming alcohol and used to sit in Court under influence thereof; neither the Bar nor the District Judge ever noticed the above allegation of consuming alcohol by him or any incident of any kind has been cited; it has been made to lend colour to the self admitted and confessed act of contempt which was an outburst of Sri Swami Nath Yadav, who has cooked up a false story against the deponent; in regard to the allegation that the deponent lost his temper while sitting, in Court on 15-3-1999 and started misbehaving with him, it is stated that in fact there was no occasion as the deponent had acted quite in normal manner and had transacted business usually; rejection of any application including the one for adjournment is within the domain of the Presiding Officer and in case such an act was done in relation to the application moved on 15-3-1999 it was quite a usual and normal action; that the motive of Sri Swami Nath Yadav is self peeping out while no motive against the deponent can be imported or imputed; filing of First Information Report by him was under the most compelling circumstances and the entire scene of criminal assault and the battery on the part of Sri Yadav was witnessed by the Court Officials including the Peon whose testimony cannot be doubted nor can it be presumed to have sided with him; Sri Swami Nath Yadav even dared to ramp into his chamber, where he took law in his hands assaulting and even strangulated him, duly aided and abated by his juniors, who have all been named in the First Information Report; the deponent would not like to comment on the action of the Bar which in these particular circumstances is generally guided and governed by the feelings of brotherhood, though the allegations are blatantly false; the resolution of the Bar was procured at the behest of the contemner Sri Swami Nath Yadav who even went to the extent of snatching the judgment from the hands of the Court Official Sri Bechu Ram and subsequently destroyed the same, an act which was quite unprecedented and desrves cognizance, a copy of whose report is being filed as Annexure-II; the deponent has never shown any involvement and indulgence in any particular case and the veracity of the allegations can be judged by this Court without any particular statement from him; there is no allegation nor is any whisper in the affidavits that juniors of Sri Swami Nath Yadav had any animosity against the deponent whereas it is obvious and self proof that knowingly and deliberately the juniors of Sri Swami Nath Yadav Sarvasri Raj Kumar Yadav, Shiv Dutt Yadav, Pramod Kumar Yadav and Sorakh Yadav participated in the said incident to please and oblige senior even at the cost their hazard to face the consequences of such an act of theirs, which finds support from the Report dated 15-3-1999 of the Reader Sri Bechu Ram ; that Sri Swami Nath Yadav has even ventured to make certain more irresponsible statements to slur the character of the deponent, which otherwise, has no nexus with the present case, it would not, therefore, be necessary to dwell upon those statements, however, if this Court commands the deponent to project the factual position on the record, he bows down to submit the same spontaneously and expeditiously, as and when directed.

14. On 10-9-1999 we got served copy of the Reply of Sri Nimesh on Sri Wali and the learned Government Advocate. The Chief Secretary of the State filed his affidavit. The Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, who joined his office on 26-5-1999, also filed his affidavit. District Judges of the State also submitted their reports. Many District Judges reported adequacy of the Police force put under their command, but many of them submitted reports that either the Police force posted is inadequate or once posted having withdrawn and thereafter not reposted; some reported that no Police force was at all posted. In this backdrop, we allowed the learned Government Advocate to go through the reports of the District Judges so that he could form an opinion as to whether the reports submitted to the Chief Secretary of the State by the Police authorities as stated in his affidavit, informing him that adequate Police force had been posted under the command of the District Judges of the State was correct or incorrect. We also directed the learned Government Advocate to inform the Chief Secretary of the State about the substance of the reports submitted by the District Judges, who in his turn if comes to the conclusion that the reports submitted to him are incorrect then he is directed to apprise as to what action he has taken against such Police authorities who had submitted incorrect reports to him. Accordingly, these cases were adjourned for further hearing to 15th October, 1999.

15. On 15th October, 1999 this Bench did not sit and the proceedings were adjourned to 17-12-1999.

16. No Rejoinder was filed by the Contemners to the Reply Affidavit of Sri Nimesh.

17. It appears that on 19-11-1999, the contemners filed an application dated 14-10-1999 supported by affidavit dated 13th October, 1999 of the contemner Shiv Dutt Yadav prepared by their counsel Sri Wali before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for transferring these contempt proceedings from our Bench on the ground that on the first date of appearance their counsel Sri Wali was humiliated to such an extent by us that he became so nervous and unable to face us and that thereafter on the next date Sri Wali had to face a bolly of humiliating question, and inspite of feeling embarrassed he continued to make a humble submission; 'we again became hostile on their counsel as the applicants had filed an application to defer the hearing of the proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal trial as their defence in the trial would be prejudiced and their counsel was forced to withdraw their application although by surrendering that application they are likely to suffer irreparable loss and injuries'. On 24-11-1999 Hon'ble The Chief Justice passed the following order 'No order'. Apparently the contemners had wilfully tried to scandalise even our administration of justice by resorting to deliberate false pleas and they as well as their draftsman Sri Wali all are guilty of contempt in view of the several decisions of the Apex Court but we do not wish to initiate any further proceedings in contempt, as these are being considered sufficient, and that their counsel Sri Wali is an old and sick man.

18. On 17-12-1999 Sri Wali came up with a prayer for adjournment on the ground of his illness and the proceedings were adjourned to 21-11-2000. Sri Wali again came up for an adjournment on similar ground. These proceedings were accordingly adjourned to 4th February, 2000. On 4th February, 2000 we adjourned the proceedings to 31st March 2000, as prayed for by Sri Wali on the grounds, inter alia, that he is still unwell, besides the contemners on account of imposition of curfew in Azamgarh could not come to Allahabad. On 31st March, 2000, however, this Bench could not be formed. On 4th May, 2000 in view of the prayer made by the learned Government Advocate the proceedings were adjourned to 5th May, 2000 awaiting filing of the affidavit of he Chief Secretary. On 5th May, 2000 and 12th May, 2000 this Bench could not be formed and the cases were adjourned to 7th July, 2000.

19. The State filed an affidavit dated 22-5-2000, sworn by Ayodhya Prasad Maurya, Sub Inspector, P.S. Kotwali, Town and District Azamgarh, stating inter alia therein that he has been deputed to file it on behalf of the State; that Case crime No. 383 of 1999 was thoroughly investigated by the Police and chargesheet No. 382 of 1999 (Photo copy appended as Annexure C.A.-1) was submitted on 24-6-1999 pursuant to which the accused persons were summoned by the C.J.M., Azamgarh and Case No. 1057 of 2000 is pending trial before the competent Court in which 20th July, 2000 is date fixed for appearance of the accused persons.

20. On 7th July, 2000 Sri Wali prayed for his withdrawal from these proceedings on account of his ill health, whereas Sri Satish Trivedi, Advocate, filed his Vakalatnamas on behalf of the contemners. We permitted Sri Wali to withdraw from these proceedings and Sri Trivedi to appear and defend the contemners. Sri Trivedi came up with a request for adjourment. We adjourned the proceedings to 14th July,2000.

The Submissions :-

21. On 14th July, 2000 Sri Trivedi, the learned counsel for the contemners, took up a stand that the contemners are throwing them completely on the mercy of the Court and do not contest these proceedings withdrawing their defence. We reminded Sri Trivedi of the effect of withdrawal of the defence of a contemner with reference to V.C. Mishra's case (1995) 2 SCC 584 : (AIR 1995 SC 2348). Sri Trivedi reiterated that he is so doing with full authority of the contemners who are also present in Court and he and they are fully aware of the consequence of withdrawal of their defence and if an opportunity is granted they shall file their affidavits in support of the aforementioned stand repeating their unqualified apology already tendered earlier in their show cause.

22. Sri Jagdish Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, who was heard, took up a stand that the acts of the contemners are unpardonable and no leniency is required to be shown.

23. We proceeded to reserve our Judgment as our Bench was not permanent and were required to form different Benches giving liberty to the contemners to file their affidavits in course of the day. We also clarified that as affidvits are yet to be filed and are to be gone into by us, therefore, we are not fixing any date for delivery of our Orders/Judgments. The contemners filed their Supplementary affidavits later on that very day.

24. The questions involved in these proceedings are as follows :-

(i) Whether the contemners by their alleged acts as reported to by Sri S.S. Nimesh, the then Incharge District Judge, Azamgarh in his letter dated March 15, 1999 to the Registrar of this Court had committed contempt of Court twice-firstly, when after delivery of the Judgment in Sessions Trial No. 377 of 1986 he retired to his chambers, in which no one had a right to enter until one obtains permission first, and despite the contemners being told by his Reader Bechu Ram not to enter his chambers, the contemners entered his chamber forcibly dragging him and hurling abuses and subsequently forcibly taking away from his custody the original Judgment of the aformentioned Sessions Trial and secondly, after illegally and unauthorisedly entering the chambers of Sri Nimesh tried to throttle him by pressing his throat by hands in presence of his P.A. Sri Shiv Shanker Maurya and Orderly-peon Paras Nath on whose intervention life of Sri Nimesh could be saved anyhow.

(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case a lenient view is required to be taken by this Court in view of the fact the contemners had thrown themselves to the mercy of the Court?

(iii) Whether this Court should report the incident in question to the U.P. State Bar Council for taking such action in the matter which may be considered appropriate?

(iv) What ultimate final directions this Court should make commanding the State of Uttar Pradesh and its Police authorities for affording sufficient protection to the Judicial Officers so that fearless administration of justice could be administered by the Judicial Officers throughout this State?

Our Findings :-

25. First we take up Question No. (i) :-

26. Let us refresh the word 'criminal contempt' which stands defined under Section 2(c) of the codified Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and which reads thus :-

2(c) 'Criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which -

(i) Scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court ; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interfers or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obsrtuct, the administration of justice in any other manner

In Re-Ajay Kumar Pandey (1998) 7 SCC 248 : (1998 All.LJ 2531) the Apex Court has observed (at page 2542 of All.LJ)

the tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by digruntled elements who fail to secure an order which they desire or which they expect is on the increase. It is unfortunate that even some disgruntled lawyers also indulge in the same objectionable activities. No latitude can be given to a litigant who attempts to browbeat the Court. In the instant case, the contemner, let alone showing any remorse or regret adopted an arrogant, defiant and contemptuous attitude. The contemner has been reckless, persistent and guilty of undermining the diginity of the Courts and his actions are motivated, deliberate and designed. Sympathy in a case like this would be totally misplaced. Mercy has no meaning. The action of the contemner calls for a deterrent punishment so that it also serves as an example to others and there is no repetition of such a contempt by anyone else, the alleged contemner being guilty of contempt of Court, he sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 (one thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

The conduct of the contemner was highly contumacious and even atrocious. He has abused professional privileges while practising as an advocate. It is, therefore, appropriate to direct that the copy of this judgment together with the relevant record be forwarded to the Chairman, Bar Council of India, who may refer the case to the committee concerned for appropriate action as is considered fit and proper.

In Rachapudi Subba Rao v. Advocate General AIR 1981 SC 755 : (1981 Cri.LJ 315) it was laid down as follows (at page 759 of AIR):-. Unfounded imputation of mala fides, bias, prejudice or ridiculing the performance of a judge or casting aspersions on his integrity, as has been done by the appellant in the notice in question, are always considered to mean scaldalizing the Court, and lowering the authority of his Court by bringing him and his office to disrespect and disrepute. Vilification of the judge, even in administrative matters or decided judicial matters may amount to 'criminal contempt' under Sub-clause (i) of Section 2(c) as it lowers or tends to lower the authority or diginity of the Court by undermining public confidence in the capacity of the judge to mete out even-handed and impartial justice.

26.1 Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads thus :-

13. Contempts not punishable in certain cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in ay law for the time being in force, no Court shall impose a sentence under this Act for contempt of Court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interfers, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.

26.2 In Ram Dayal Markaha v. State of M.P. AIR 1978 SC 921 the Apex Court held to the effect that where a contemner is a senior lawyer practising in Mofussil Court makes an allegation that a Judge had a predisposition to convict, he is not entitled to benefit of Section 13 aforesaid. Here the allegation is that Sri Nimesh had colluded with the accused persons of the Sessions Trial No. 377 of 1986 and that he reserved his Judgment on 22-2-1999 without hearing the arguments of either party.

27. Let us have a look at the following Rules framed by the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 prescribing duties of an advocate to the Court :-

Section I - Duty to the Court

1. An Advocate shall, during the presentation of his case and while otherwise acting before a Court, conduct himself with dignity and self respect. He shall not be servile and whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint against a judicial officer, it shall be his right and duty to submit his grievance to proper authorities.

2. An Advocate shall maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, bearing in mind that the dignity of the judicial office is essential for the survival of a free community.

3. An Advocate shall not influence the decision of a Court by any illegal or improper means. Private communications with a judge relating to a pending case are forbidden.

4. An Advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the Court, opposing counsel or parties which the Advocate himself ought not to do. An Advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouth piece of the client, and shall exercise his own judgment in the use of restrained language in correspondence avoiding scurrilous attacks in pleadings, and using intemperae language during arguments in Court.

In Re - V.C. Mishra (1995) 2 SCC 584 : (AIR 1995 SC 2348) the duties of a lawyer and the extent of his entitlement was summed up as follows :-

No one expects a lawyer to be subservient to the Court while presenting his case and not to put forward his arguments merely because the Court is against him. However, if, in spite of it the lawyer finds that the Court is against him, He is not expected to be discourteous to the Court or to fling hot words or epithets or use disrespectful, derogatory or threatening language or exhibit temper which has the effect of overbearing the Court. The lawyer is not entitled to indulge in unbecoming conduct either by showing his temper or using unbecoming language.

28. In State of U.P. v. Ratan Shukla, AIR 1955 Allahabad 258 it was held that a Report or Reference by the subordinate Courts stands on the same footing as an affidavit by it and would be evidence to prove its contents. The contemners alleged that they did not enter chambers of Sri Nimesh, Sri Nimesh by filing his consolidated reply affidavit to the show cause of the contemners reiterated the correctness of his report. The factual report, when asked by this Court on its administrative side submitted by the District Judge, Azamgarh Sri D. P. Varshney through his report dated 18-3-1999 and the documents attached thereto and the subsequent report sent on that very day to the Registrar of this Court which were produced before us on 24-3-1999 and all through support the versions reported to by Sri Nimesh. The defence of the contemner Nos. 2 and 3 that they do not practise at Civil Court, Azamgarh is also belied by the patent fact in their own Vakalatnamas filed in these proceedings they had been described as all practising as Advocates in Civil Court, Azamgarh. Sri Varshney had also sent the copy of the statement made on oath before him by (i) Sri Nimesh (ii) the Orderly Peon Sri Paras Nath (iii) Sri Bechu Ram, the Reader, (iv) Sri Shiv Shanker Yadav, Assistant D.G.C. (Criminal), (v) Sri Shiv Shanker Maurya, P.A. attached with Sri Nimesh, and (vi) Sri Narsing, Peon which all support the incident and nullify the defence of the contemners. In fact in their show cause the contemners had not denied the factual aspect of the incident as reported to by Sri Nimesh. The facts stated therein are not at variance from those reported by him to the Police on which the F.I.R. was drawn up, as alleged by the contemners. The contemners in their show cause have tried to rely upon the order sheet of the Court passed on 15- 3-1999. The 3rd order passed on 15-3-1999 was by Sri Nimesh and not by any one else as suggested by the contemners. We had not formulated any charge of contempt in regard to the utterances and incidents which happened in Court and, thus, do not want to say anything in that regard except pointing out that on their own case set up heated arguments had taken place in the Court room. By hurling abuses by the contemners to Sri Nimesh either immediately before and while entering his Chambers or thereafter in the Chambers the contemners had committed contempt. The reader was justified in telling them not to enter the chambers and in dragging him contempt was committed. In snatching the judgment from him also contempt was committed. In attempting to throttle Sri Nimesh in his Chambers also a serious contempt was committed.

29. We have already stated that Sri Trivedi, the learned counsel for the contemners, during hearing of these contempt proceedings did not contest the correctness of the report of Sri Nimesh but merely thrown them completely on the mercy of the Court. He also orally withdrew the defence of the contemners taken in the show cause telling that if opportunity being granted they will file further affidavit which they did not file. Accordingly, let us have a look at those affidavits.

30. All five contemners have repeated the same words in their Affidavits dated 14th July, 2000 viz :-

3. That at the back of the deponent, his pairokar had instructed Sri D.N. Wali, Advocate, to appear on his behalf in the abovenoted contempt proceedings.

4. That no effective consultation was done between deponent and his counsel Sri D.N. Wali on day one when he had put in his appearance to defend the deponent.

5. That deponent sincerely wanted to tender his unqualified apologies on the very first day of his appearance before this Hon'ble Court inasmuch as deponent has highest regard for the majesty of the Court and in the incident of 15-3-99 he had realised his mistake and was ashamed of himself.

6. That in the proceedings on account of some wrong legal advice a wholly unjustified stand on his behalf was taken before this Hon'ble Court for which deponent is again feeling sorry and realising his mistake, he is once again tendering his unqualified apologies for his earlier conducts in the said proceedings which he never intended from the core of his heart.

7. That the deponent is also hereby withdrawing any application, if any moved on his behalf for getting the proceedings transferred to some other bench. The deponent has the full confidence in this Hon'ble Court and has highest regard as well. He also apologises for said ill-advised act and pleading on his behalf.

8. That on account of misunderstanding of law and further due to lack of proper legal advice whatever steps have been taken on behalf of the deponent before this Hon'ble Court, are hereby withdrawn and with folded hands, the deponent is placing himself for mercy before this Hon'ble Court for whom the deponent has highest regard and also undertakes to behave in upright manner in future to uphold the majesty of the Court.

31. We do not find in express terms withdrawal of the defence taken by the contemners in their Supplementary Affidavits. Let us have a look as to whether the statements made in the aforementioned Supplementary Affidavits are true and have been made sincerely and from their core of hearts by the contemners.

32. 10.00 a.m. of Tuesday dated 6th April, 1999 was the returnable time and date fixed by us. Since the contemners were arrested by the Police in relation to Crime Case No. 383 of 1999, registered on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by Sri Nimesh with the local Police, and in their custody they were produced before us by the Police. The record discloses execution of Vakalatnama on 6-4-1999 by all the contemners in favour of Sri D. N. Wali, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad and its acceptance and filing by Sri Wali on that very day. The entries in the Vakalatnama do not show that any Pairokar of the contemners had handed if over to Sri Wali, Sri D. N. Wali had appeared before us in their presence, who came up with a prayer for adjournment which was allowed. Thus, it cannot be accepted that Sri Wali had appeared on behalf of the contemners merely on instructions of their Pairokar whose name was also not disclosed in the Vakalatnama as stated in paragraph 3 of the Supplementary Affidavit.

33. The statement made in paragraph 4 of the Supplementary Affidavit may be correct.

34. The statements made in paragraph 5 appears to be untrue and merely an eye wash. Nothing prevented the contemners, who were present in Court, to tender their unqualified apology on 6th April, 1999. Even on the adjourned date that is 7th May, 1999, the contemners did not tender their unqualified apoligies rather they through their learned counsel, Sri D.N. Wali proceeded to raise a preliminary objection about the maintainability of these proceedings by placing reliance on proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which on their case set up was not applicable. On the third day that is on 14th May, 1999, Sri Wali for the first time filed his Vakalatnama in Contempt Case No. 19 of 1999 and proceeded to make further arguments in both proceedings in support of his preliminary objection. Even on fourth day that is 21st May, 1999, they did not file their unqualified apology rather without filing their show cause prayed for deferring the hearing of the proceedings awaiting the report of the Police in the Crime Case in question or to refer to a Larger Bench of nine Judges the question of preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of these proceedings on account of alleged applicability of proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 despite our telling of the direct pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Reddy (supra). We proceeded to question Sri Wali, in presence of the contemners, as to how these proceedings are similar in nature to that one which is being heard by a nine Judges' Bench to which one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.) is a member. It was then only Sri Wali came up with a stand not pressing the petitions filed earlier as well as on that day and prayed that one more indulgence be granted to the contemners to file their show cause, which was granted. It was then on 30th June, 1999 that they filed their respective show cause. Thus, apparently the statement that the contemners sincerely wanted to tender their unqualified apologies on the very first day of their appearance is not correct.

35. In relation to the statements made in paragrah 6 of the Supplementary Affidavit, it is pointed out that in their show cause they have made all attempts to paint in jet black the character of Sri S. S. Nimesh except the one which we will refer later on and even went to the extent of making insinuations which were unsupported by record as pointed out by Sri Nimesh through his affidavit, a copy of which was served on the contemners on 10-9-1999, to which they did not file any rejoinder reiterating correctness of their allegations and denying the statements made by Sri Nimesh therein.

36. The worst is that by filing a Transfer Application before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice without even specifying any provision under which it is being made they even went to the extent of making scandalous and apparently false allegations against us on which the Hon'ble The Chief Justice passed 'No Orders' meaning thereby the proceedings were refused to be transferred. In Jaswant Singh v. Virendra Singh 1995 Supp (1) SCC 384 when a transfer petition was filed before the Supreme Court against a learned Judge of the High Court it was observed that 'Transfer petition like the application casts aspersions on the learned Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions and has the tendency to scandalise the Court. It was an attempt to browbeat the learned Judge of the High Court and cause interference in the conduct of a fair trial. Not only are the aspersions derogatory, scandalous and uncalled for but they also tend to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect...bring the Court in disrepute.

37. The statement made in paragraph 7 of the Supplementary Affidavit is again eye wash for the reason that the Transfer Application having been not allowed by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, there cannot be any question of withdrawing that application. It cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that the contemners were not aware of pressing their transfer application before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice by Sri Wali and, thus, their statement withdrawing that application, dubbing it as if any moved on their behalf, is thoroughly misconceived.

38. The statement made in last sentence of paragraph 7 and in paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Affidavit begging apologies for their said ill advised act and pleadings on account of misunderstanding of law and lack of proper legal advice and their hereby withdrawal etc. are merely an eye wash and blaming Sri Wali cannot be accepted. On his own showing, contemner No. 1 has put in about 23 years of practice. On the materials on the record, contemners Nos. 2 to 5 stand attached with him as his juniors. It appears from the report of the District Judge Sri Varshney that the Presidents, Secretaries and Office Bearers of the local Bar Associations accompanied by Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, Vice Chairman, U. P. Bar Council, wanted him to influence the Police to stop the arrest of the contemners on which the former told them that the law will take its own course, which could not be interfered with on which they wanted him to direct the Police to register a First Information Report against Sri Nimesh to which they were told that in view of the C.J.M., Nadiad's case (AIR 1991 SC 406) it is not possible for him to do so. It may be mentioned that vide a top secret letter addressed to the Registrar of this Court, Sri Varshney reported that it will not be possible for Sri Nimesh to work in the Judgeship peacefully in future as the atmosphere has become polluted, tense and strained, though the situation is under control, and if deemed proper the Court may transfer him to some other District as early as deemed necessary and that the officers of the Judgeship somewhat are agitated on account of fear of similar possible incident in future. The incident of assault was also reported in a popular Hindi Daily Aaj in its Edition dated March 16, 1999 along with a report that the local unit of the Judicial Officers of Azamgarh has passed a resolution after holding its meeting at 1.30 p.m. in Chambers of the District Judge, Azamgarh condemning the incident and demanding serious action against the contemners and for providing proper security to all Judicial Officers posted at Azamgarh so that they could work smoothly without any fear. It further appears that even the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Uttar Pradesh was informed about the incident under Rule 56 of the Rules.

39. The copies of the documents appended as 14 annexures to the show cause notice of contemner No. 1, Sri Swami Nath Yadav, do not show that they were obtained on or after 6th April, 1999. Thus, the adjournments sought for from us on the ground of obtaining certain documents were not founded on a true ground but as a dilatory tactics.

40. The Evening News Paper Hindi Dalily Azamgarh Parikrama dated 13th September, Friday, 1998 had not named Sri Nimesh who had allegedly committed the act of sodomy with the child, which is also inadmissibe in evidence.

41. We have called for the records on the Administrative side of the Court. We find that Sri Nimesh, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, against whom there was not a charge of raping Smt. Beena, a sweeperess (female sweeper), but of misbehaviour with her and a further charge in regard to his intoxication. We do not find that Smt. Beena aforesaid had withdrawn her allegations, as alleged by the contemners. The charge of intoxication was found to be not proved. We further find that the District Judge, Azamgarh Sri Varshney had also reported to this Court that Sri Nimesh should not have delivered the judgment in hurry but we restrain ourselves in making any comment in that regard as that is not an issue before us. However, we are of the firm view that these cannot be grounds for committal of the acts by the contemners. Sri Nimesh, however, was transferred by the mid term Transfer Commitee of the Court on 6-4-1999 to Jalaun at Orai and that a vigilance enquiry ordered by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 28-4-1999 is pending.

42. Sri Nimesh was posted as IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh with effect from 9th February, 1998 and as Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh with effect from 5th June, 1998 whereas the complaints alleged in relation to the Sessions Trial in question starts from 22nd February, 1999. The District Judge, Azamgarh, Sri V. N. Pandey, in his Annual Confidential Remarks for the years 1997-98 had stated, inter alia, that he is a fair and impartial Officer in dealing with public and members of the Bar; he is cool minded and does not lose temper in Court; there is nothing in his private character to lower him down in the estimation of public which adversely affects the discharge of his official duties; and that nothing came to his knowledge to doubt his integrity, hence his integrity is certified. In the Court entry for the years 1997-98 his integrity was certified; his relations with the members of the Bar and other brother Officers was found to be good and that his disposal was also found to be good being 238%. The office tells us that the A.C.R. for the year 1998-99 has not been received. The A.C.R. for the year 1999-2000 also recorded certifying his integrity.

43. Before one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.) while sitting in a Division Bench another contempt proceeding in relation to some Azamgarh lawyers had come up. On query Sri Jagdish Tiwari, learned G.A., too, had also drawn our attention to the fact that 2 of the contemners herein are facing that proceeding. The office, on our query, showed the records of Criminal Contempt Case No. 50 of 1986 State v. Kamlakar Singh and others which discloses that Contemner Nos. 1 and 2 herein stand arrayed as Opposite party Nos. 6 and 4 respectively and following further facts :- The District Judge, Azamgarh reported to the Court for initiating proceedings under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against several advocates in the back drop that they along with other lawyers on 18-3-1996 terrorised the Presiding Officers of the Judgeship of Azamgarh; damaged the Court property of more than Rs. 50,000/-; dragged out lawyers from the Court rooms, while they were working and compelled the Presiding Officers to retire from the dais, shouting slogans abusing them; they abused them and their family members by shouting further slogans while passing in procession, carrying banners and placards displaying obscene slogans lowering, down the image of judiciary as well as of those Advocates who did not participate in their acts of criminal contempt while passing through the Court Rooms as well as the Officers' Colony. By order dated 22-9-1997 the Court issued notices to show cause why proceedings in contempt be not initiated against them and they be not punished.

We further find service of notices on contemner Nos. 1 and 2 herein on 10-11-1997 and an application dated 20-12-1997 by contemner Nos. 1 and 2 herein along with others, making a prayer to exempt their personal appearances and to grant suitable time for filing their reply, stating that they hold the Courts at a very high esteem for which and the Judges they have the highest regards and had always shown highest respect to them and their unfailed endeavours has always been to pay such respect to them.

We could not find that they have filed their show cause in this proceeding. Since this proceeding is still pending and that too not before us we do not want to say any thing further except that what respect has been shown by them to Sri Nimesh already stands noticed.

44. On our query as to whether against the Judgment of acquittal dated 15-3-1999 in Sessions Trial No. 377 of 1986 passed by Sri Nimesh any revision and or appeal has been filed in this Court, the office showed us records of (i) Criminal Revision No. 884 of 1999 filed on 4-5-1999 by the Informant Chhedi through Sri D.N. Wali, the counsel for the contemners, and (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 99 (Defective) of 1999 State v. Vasudev and Ors. No ground has been taken therein either by the Informant or the State that even though Sri Nimesh on 22-2-1999 had not heard either parties yet had fixed 11-3-1999 as the date for delivery of his Judgment.

45. The materials on the record referred to above prove correctness of the facts stated in the reference wade by Sri Nimesh and unequivocally prove the committal of repeated contempt by the contemners who had taken a false defence. Accordingly, we hold them guilty of committal of contempt and dispose of Question No. 1.

Re-Question No. 2

46. In view of our findings including the conduct of the contemners in their application dated 14-10-1999 we are satisfied that the contempts were of such nature which substantially interfered with the due course of justice and thus they do not deserve any mercy or leniency. In fact their conduct in throttling Sri Nimesh had exceeded all norms and is unpardonable. Any leniency in the peculiar facts and circumstances, will give wrong signal to all concerned. We, however, impose a consolidated simple imprisonment for one month, besides a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further 15 days simple imprisonment on all the five contenners, namely. Sri Swami Nath Yadav, Sri Prabodh Yadav, Sri Sorakh Yadav, Sri Shiv Dutt Yadav and Sri Raj Kumar Yadav. The fines imposed are required to be deposited within one month.

47. Question No. (ii) stands disposed of accordingly.

48. We now take up Question No. (iii).

The facts speak for themselves. The relevant rules framed by the Bar Council of India, extracted earlier, and the declaration of the Apex Court in V.C. Mishra's case supra do not at all permit an advocate to resort to such acts. Accordingly, we are of the view that the matter should be reported to the State Bar Council. It is ordered accordingly. Question No. (iii) stands disposed of.

Re-Question No. (iv)

49. Now we take up the last question for our consideration.

50. In relation to the notice issued to the State Government as to what action it intends to take to prevent recurrence of such an incident in future concerning the Judical Officers of this State and particularly in regard to the Judicial Officers of the Judgeship of Azamgarh and the subsequent interlocutory directions made by us, the Chief Secretary of our State has filed firstly his affidavit dated 18th May, 1999. The District Judges submitted their reports. A perusal thereof showed utter callousness in not providing adequate security to the Judicial Officers in some cases. The Chief Secretary thereafter filed his Affidavit. In the affidavits aforesaid it has been stated, inter alia, that all the Inspector Generals (Zones) and the Deputy Inspector Generals (Ranges) were directed to provide necessary forces to the Judicial Officers for their protection; that instructions had been issued from time to time for security of the Judicial Courts and staff in various Districts of the State; and that a comparative chart has been prepared in that regard (filed as Annexure-2).

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, has also stated in his affidavit that immediately after the incident was brought to the notice following forces were deployed under the supervision of two Circle Officers, six Station Officers, one Sub Inspector, 20 Constables, two platoon P.A.C., one and an half Section P.A.C. till the normalcy prevails and thereafter Head Constable, two Constables, one and an half section P.A.C, one armed guard and two armed Constables, besides adequate armed forces at the residential colony of the Judicial Officers.

We put on the record that in regard to these affidavits of the Chief Secretary of the State that the learned Government Advocate representing the State assured us that no stone will be left unturned to continue to provide adequate security to the Judicial Officers of the State to save them from any fear in Courts and/or their residences as fearless administration of justice is as much a concern of the State itself as of this Apex Court of the State.

We believe the sincerity of the stand taken by the Chief Secretary of our State and reiterated before us through the learned Government Advocate and accordingly, do not consider necessary to pass any further direction in this regard except this that if any Judicial Officer of the State apprehends any type of obstruction in fearless administration of his justice he shall inform his District Judge, who in his turn will first examine the same objectively and if after finding substance shall at once bring to the notice of the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of his district of the same, who in their turn shall be duty bound to afford sufficient police protection to that Judicial Officer and if even then the District Judge finds that no proper action has been taken in that regard by the aforesaid police authorities, in that event he will make a report to the Chief Secretary of the State through the Registrar General/Registrar of this Court and in that event the Chief Secretary shall take a (serious) view of the matter arid apart from directing the Director General of Police of this State to take an appropriate action at once in relation to providing sufficient security to the Judicial Officer concerned shall also take further action against the erring Police Authority concerned. The District Judges of the Judgeships shall also follow the same course if they apprehend the same by reporting to the Inspector General of Police of their area thereafter the same course will be followed by all concerned.

Question No. (iv) is disposed of accordingly.

51. Before parting it is clarified that this Judgment shall have no bearing on the issues involved in the Criminal Trial pending against the contemners, which has to be decided on the basis of the evidence which might have been or may be brought on the record.

52. These contempt proceedings are disposed of acordingly.

53. The office is directed to hand over a X-rox/computerised copy of this Judgment by tomorrow to (i) the learned Advocate General for its intimation to the Chief Secretary of the State (ii) the Registrar General of the Court for informing all the District Judges of the State for a follw up action, if any when needed in future and (iii) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for a follow up action.

The office is also directed to send a copy of this Judgment to the U.P. Bar Council, Allahabad within two weeks for a follow up action.