V.K. Mehrotra, J.

1. On a reference made by the District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal and Spiti Districts at Mandi, through letter of 19 December, 1991 addressed to the Registrar of this Court, the present proceedings were initiated against respondent Nawal Thakur of village Bhutti in Tehsil and District Kullu (H.P.). The reference of the District and Sessions Judge is one under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The District and Sessions Judge had been requested by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, through his letter of 8 November, 1991 to make a reference to this Court.

2. Nawal Kishore instituted a criminal complaint No. 375/1 of 1991 against S/Shri Shanta Kumar (at present the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh), Maheshwar Singh son of Mohinder Singh, Rupi Palace, Kullu and Roop Singh (the then Forest Minister, Himachal Pradesh) under Sections 120-B/379/447/420/427/395/109, I.P.C. on 28 August, 1991. He filed another complaint the next day, namely, on 29 August, 1991 against S/Shri Shanta Kumar (Chief Minister of H.P.) and Maheshwar Singh son of Shri Mohinder Singh, Rupi Palace, Kullu, under Sections 397/447/109/34, I.P.C. The complaints were presented before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who, after recording the fact of their presentation before him directed that they be put up before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, on 5 September, 1991 as both the complaints pertained to Police Station Kullu. The Chief Judicial Magistrate assigned both the complaints to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 5 September, 1991 for disposal in accordance with law. A prayer for adjournment was made before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate when the complaints were taken up by him on 7 September, 1991. They were adjourned to 18 September, 1991. On that date a prayer for adjournment was again made by the complainant on the ground that he had moved the Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, with a petition. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that the complainant should either obtain a stay order or else the case will be proceeded with for which 30 September, 1991 was fixed. The complainant asked for adjournment of the case on 30 September, 1991 also on the ground that the application moved by him had been fixed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, for consideration on 9 October, 1991. The cases were adjourned to 28 October, 1991 on which date the complainant did not turn-up in spite of the cases having been called out thrice.

3. Meanwhile, on 10 October, 1991 yet another complaint was filed by Nawal Thakur against S/Shri Shanta Kumar (Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh) and Maheshwar Singh son of Shri Mohinder Singh, Rupi Palace, Kullu, under Sections 295/295-A/420, I.P.C. This complaint was disposed of by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, to whom it was assigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, on 10 October, 1991 itself, by a detailed speaking order of 21 October, 1991 after hearing the complainant but without recording his statement and the statements of the witnesses named in the list. Towards the end of his order the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, observed that:

'...In these circumstances, I am constrained to hold that besides there being bar under Section 195, Cr. P.C. and under Section 197, Cr. P.C. the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence by the accused persons the cognizance of which could be taken by this Court.... In the light of above discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 295/295-A/420, I.P.C. is hereby dismissed...'

4. On 22 October, 1991 Nawal Thakur moved an application in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, describing it as 'Criminal Contempt Petition, praying for reference to the Hon'ble High Court under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1991. In this application Shri Shanta Kumar, Chief Minister Himachal Pradesh, is shown to be the respondent. It was, inter alia, mentioned that two criminal complaints registered as 375/1 of 1991 and 376/1 of 1991 were pending before himand fixed for hearing on 30 October, 1991 and that another complaint against the respondent (Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh) registered with the Court had been dismissed on 21 October, 1991 without examining the complainant and strictly following the mandatory, provisions of Section 200, Cr. P.C. and direction of the highest Court and that cancellation report had been accepted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, in the matter of FIR No. 90 of 1987 which was registered at Police Station, Manali without informing the complainant-petitioner of which the original order was not traceable and that

'...the action of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu amounts to interference in the judicial process, as none is above law and above Constitution....'

And, praying that:

'...reference may kindly be made to the Hon'ble High Court and all the cases against the respondent be forwarded to the Hon'ble High Court for action in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution....'

5. Thereafter, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate sent his communication of 8 November, 1991 to the Sessions Judge requesting for a reference to be made to this Court. The petition (No. 89-IV/91) moved before him by Nawal Thakur was also submitted to the District and Sessions Judge by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate with this communication, along with the record pertaining to the three complaints filed by Nawal Thakur on 28 August, 29 August and 10 October, 1991.

6. The District and Sessions Judge says in his communication of 19 December, 1991 to this Court that:

'...It may be stated here that Shri Nawal Thakur is a habitual blackmailer. It is his habit to file private complaints against high dignitaries. He has not spared any Prime Minister, Chief Minister and even some of the Chief Justices. He has been held to be in the habit of filing frivolous complaints against high dignitaries and officials with a view to blackmailing them, by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nawal Thakur, 1991 Criminal Law Journal 1377.'

And, then (in paragraph 6) that

'In my humble opinion Shri Nawal Thakur has committed criminal contempt of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu by moving the application (copy Annexure D) in the following three ways:-

(i) He has criticisd the order dated 21-10-91 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in a mala fide manner. If he bona fide believed that the order was illegal or not warranted by law the proper course for him was to have approached the court exercising the revisional powers for its reversal.

ii) It appears that after the dismissal of his complaint mentioned in para 1 of this reference vide order dated 21-10-1991 he felt that the complaints mentioned in para 2 of this reference might also meet the same fate and, therefore, with a view to pre-empting the course of action likely to be adopted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, he filed an application for making a reference of contempt (photostat copy of Annexure D). By doing so he has tried to interfere in the administration of justice.

(iii) He has made a false allegation that the case registered at his instance at Police Station, Manali was cancelled by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate without issuing notice to him or without hearing him. The record of the case which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has submitted along with his aforesaid reference shows that not only that notice was issued to Shri Nawal Thakur, but he appeared and objected to the cancellation of the case and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has not so far passed any final order in the matter, but made a back reference to the police for the clarification of certain points. This position is borne out from the last order dated 20-9-1991 passed in the said matter (photostat copy Annexure F).' before making the request that action, as per law, may be taken against Shri Nawal Thakur.

7. On 3 January, 1992 a Division Bench of this Court took cognizance of the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge and said in its order of that date:

'...Issue notice to the contemner Nawal Thakur to appear in this Court in person on March 9,1992, to answer the charge of having committed the contempt of court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, as communicated by Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal-Spiti Districts in sub-paras (i) to (iii) of para 6 of his reference dated 19-12-1991.

Notice to the contemner shall accompany a copy of order of reference dated December 19,1991 of Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal-Spiti Districts....'

8. Shri Nawal Thakur appeared in this Court on 9 March, 1992 and sought legal assistance. The Court directed that 'the feasibility of providing legal aid to him be considered by the learned Advocate General who is the ex-officio convener of the Legal Aid Committee in the High Court. Shri Thakur may be rendered such assistance as is possible in this respect' and directed the case to be listed on 13 April, 1992. As prayed by Shri Nawal Thakur, the case came up thereafter on 14 April, 27 April and 27 May, 1992 when on the request made by Shri M. L. Sharma, Advocate, for Shri Nawal Thakur the Court accepted the prayer 'to exempt respondent Nawal Thakur from appearing in person in connection with this case on future dates until directed otherwise'. Shri M. L. Sharma was heard for sometime on 2 June and thereafter on 30 June as well as on 1 July, 1992 when orders were reserved.

9. On 27 May, 1992 respondent Nawal Thakur was present along with his counsel Shri M. L. Sharma. An affidavit sworn by the respondent was filed through Shri Sharma, accompanied by another hand written affidavit of the respondent, while we are rising for the day. Prior to it, Shri Sharma had wanted to make submissions on behalf of the respondent without filing a reply but we had not permitted him to do so because we were told that the respondent was tendering unqualified apology. We directed Shri Siiarma that if the respondent wished to offer an apology, let him do so on oath. While praying for the hand written affidavit of the respondent being kept on the record along with the typed affidavit, Shri Sharma had told us that on an earlier occasion also, several yenrs back, when the respondent was facing similar proceedings in this Court, he had taken identical care of making the respondent write out the affidavit in his own hand writing. All this is to be found in the order sheet of 27 May, 1992.

10. In both the affidavits aforesaid, sworn by respondent Nawal Thakur on 27 May, 1992, it has been averred by him, on personal knowledge, thus:

'(ii) That the deponent in his petition to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, had asserted that 'FIR 90/87 was registered in the Police Station, Manali but this Court accepted this cancellation report without informing the complainant-petitioner as directed by the highest Court and this case was pending before this Court but no original order is traceable;

(iii) That learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in his reference para 4 has observed that Flk No. 90/87 was not cancelled and the said case is still pending and has not been disposed of. The learned Magistrate has further been pleased to observe that the allegations of the petitioner are, therefore, unfounded as per record of this Court, no such cancellation order appears to have been passed by this Court;

(iv) That the deponent is law-abiding citizen and holds this Hon'ble Court and the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in highest esteem. The deponent never intended to blackmail the learned Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, and the deponent sincerely regrets that such impression is created. The deponent bona fide expresses unconditional apology from his penitent heart and prays for his discharge....'

11. Initially, Shri M. L. Sharma prayed that the notice issued to respondent Nawal Thakur be discharged in view of what was described by him as 'unconditional apology with penitent heart' being given by Nawal Thakur through these affidavits. Later, Shri Sharma addressed us on the merits of the matter for the plea that the notice issued to Nawal Thakur deserved to be discharged. This course was adopted by him when we asked him to address us on the question whether the mere fact apology was offered by an alleged coutemner was enough for dropping proceedings against him irrespective of the repetitive conduct of a similar nature on his part.

12. The request for keeping the hand written affidavit of Nawal Thakur on the; record of these proceedings, along with his typed affidavit, had been made by Shri Sharma to us on 27 May, 1992. He had told usi that he had taken identical care of making the, respondent write out the affidavit in his own handwriting on an earlier occasion when respondent Nawal Thakur was facing similar proceedings in this Court. Those, Shri Sharma told us, were proceedings in Contempt Petition No. 6 of 1980, decided on 14 October, 1981. We had directed on 2 June,; 1992 that the record of that case shall also be placed before us on the next date. The record was made available to us and the learned counsel in these proceedings thereafter. Its | perusal revealed that while going through the ', petition registered as Contempt Petition (Criminal) 5 of 1980 by respondent Nawal Thakur it had come to the notice of a Bench of this Court that he had stated that Shri R. L. Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu has 'corruptly, maliciously and unlawfully been prosecuting the petitioner....' On that basis notice was given to respondent Nawal Thakur on 5 May, 1980 to show cause why he should not be punished for committing criminal contempt of Court by making the aforesaid statement. The matter had to be adjourned j again and again and the presence of respondent Nawal could be secured before this Court by issuance of coercive process. On 29 September, 1981 Shri M. L. Sharma, Advocate, was appointed as amicus curiae at State expense in view of the request made by Shri' Nawal Thakur that he would like Shri M. L. Sharma to be engaged for him. Since Shri I Nawal Thakur had been produced in custody and had neither asked for nor had been! granted bail, he was directed to be detained in Sub Jail Kaithu till further orders. The case , was finally disposed of on 14 October, 1981 by accepting the unconditional apology tendered by respondent Nawal Thakur who was directed to be released forthwith. What the Bench observed in its order of 14 October,! 1981 was that:

'We need not go into further details about these proceedings since today the respondent has filed an affidavit tendering unconditional, apology. He has also given some details about his family life and the various tribulations in his life. We are satisfied that the respondent is genuinely sorry for what he has done. He has! also given an undertaking not to do so in future.

In view of the unconditional apology-tendered by the respondent, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be fully met if this apology is accepted. We, therefore, accept the appology...'

13. In the record of Contempt Petition (Criminal) 6 of 1980, disposed of by the aforesaid order is contained a copy of the judgment delivered on 11 December, 1980 by a Division Bench in Contempt Petition (Criminal) 10 of 1980 titled, Nawal Thakur v. Shri R.L. Sharma, CJM, Kullu. In the opening part of the judgment it is mentioned that:

'...This is not the first time that this petitioner has filed a petition for criminal! contempt against the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kulu. He had done so earlier. It was; registered as Contempt Petition (Cr.) No. 5 of 1980....In the earlier petition he had made certain allegations out of which we had taken suo motu action against the petitioner i for criminal contempt. He is facing thati charge. We may at this stage record that we; have been receiving from jail practically every other day such petitions from the petitioner where he is confined as a convict in another criminal case...'

14. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Naval Thakur, 1991 Cri LJ 1377, it has been observed by this Court (in paragraphs 8 and 9) (at page 1379):

'It appears, the respondent by some unique sense of self-aggrandisement initiated this matter under these provisions. Perusal of the statement, at page 16 of the file, makes a! surprising reading. I notice that the respondent has filed complaints against number of Government officials including Judges posted at the place. There are complaint against late Dr. Y. S. Parmar former Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, Shri Devi Singh, former Forest Minister, Shri Sukh Ram, former Public Works Department Minister and I at present Union Minister of State for Civil Supplies, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tatachari, former Lokayukta, Himachal Pradesh, Shri Ram Lal Thakur, former Chief Ministfcr, Sh. Sat Mahajan, Revenue Minister, Himachal Pradesh, Shri Vir Bhadra Singh, Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh, Hon'ble Mr. V. D. Misra, former Chief Justice of High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Roop Singh, the then Sessions Judge, Mandi, and later on Judge of this High Court and from Director General of Police to constables. All these complaints are stated to have been dismissed by the Courts subsequently.

In this view of the matter, there is substance in the submissions of the learned Assistant Advocate General and I am of the considered opinion that the sole purpose of the respondent has been and is to blackmail these dignitaries and harass and intimidate other officials for no rhyme or reason which cannot be permitted by a court of law....'

15. In the present instance notice has been given to respondent Nawal Thakur to show cause why he should not be punished for having committed criminal contempt of the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu. Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, 'Criminal Contempt' means 'the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by sings, or by visible representations, or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which -

(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or

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

(iii) interferes, or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.'

16. The definition is scopic. The act of a contemner may consist in the publication of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which has consequence of a nature mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (c) of Section 2. The doing of any other act whatsoever would include the doing of a similar act repeatedly. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Volume I) gives, ' amongst others, the meaning of word 'act' as:

'to conduct or comport oneself..'

17. The application made by Nawal Thakur before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 22nd October, 1991 lists several complaints made by him against Shri Shanta Kumar, Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh. Two of these, registered as 375/1 of 1991 and 376/1 of 1991, are stated to be pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The third (reference being to the one under Sections 295/295-A/420, I.P.C. against S/Shri Shanta Kumar and Mahesh-war Singh) was stated to have been dismissed by the Addl. C.J.M. on 21st October, 1991 'without examining the petitioner-complainant and strictly following the mandatory provision of Section 200, Cr. P.C. and direction of the higest Court'. And, yet, another case registered as FIR No. 90 of 1987 at Police Station, Manali was Stated to have been brought to an end by the Court of Addl. C.J.M. by accepting 'the cancellation report without informing the complainant-petitioner as directed by the highest Court'.

18. After the aforesaid reference to the various cases it is said (in paragraph 6 of the application) that 'the action of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, amounts to interference in the judicial process, as none is above law and above Constitution' and then follows the prayer (in paragraph 7) that:

'It is, therefore, in the interest of the Nation which is on a volcanic eruption on the basis of religious fundamentalists and the action of the Presiding Officer of the Court atnounts to contempt. It is prayed therefore that reference may kindly be made to tne JHon'ble High CourTand all the cases against the respondent be forwarded to the Hon'ble High Court for actionin accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution...'

19. The respondent, as said earlier, named is Shri Shanta Kumar, Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh.

20. What does this outburst amount to? The answer is not far to seek. Respondent Naval Thakur clearly wishes to convey through this application that the Addl. C.J.M. was in the habit of acting in blatant i violation of the provisions of law. The cases in which the Chief Minister was arrayed as a respondent in his Court would not be fairly tried by him. All these cases deserved to be transferred to the High Court for trial. The course of conduct of respondent Nawal Thakur, of which the application of 22nd October, 1991 is a part, can leave no one in doubt that he is trying to undermine the authority of the court of the Addl. C.J.M. He makes no mistake about it when he calls upon the Addl. C.J.M. to make a reference under Section 15(2) of the Act to secure an order from this Court holding the Addl. C.J.M. guilty of the contempt of his own court by causing 'interference in the judicial process' by passing an order dismissing the complaint against S/Shri Shanta Kumar and Mahesh-war Singh on 21 October, 1991 without, according to respondent Nawal Thakur, 'examining the petitioner-complainant and strictly following the mandatory provision of Section 200, Cr. P.C. and direction of the highest Court' and accepting the cancellation report in the case registered as FIR No. 90 of 1987 at Police Station, Manali without informing the complainant-petitioner, as directed by the highest Court'. It is unnecessary for us to go into the legality of the action of the Addl. C.J.M., even if the allegations made by respondent Nawal Thakur against him in respect of these two cases were treated to be correct, for the determination of the question we are trying to answer. What is noticeable is that the Addl. C.J.M. is being; told that, inasmuch as, two criminal complaints 375/1 of 1991 and 376/1 of 1991 against Shri Shanta Kumar were pending before him, by passing illegal orders in dismissing the complaint against Shri Shanta Kumar on 21st October, 1991 and accepting the cancellation report in respect of FIR No. 90 of 1987, he (the Addl. C.J.M.) had committed contempt of Court by causing interference in the judicial process. The insinuation is clear. Respondent Nawal Thakur unmistakably tries to scandalize the Court of the Addl. C.J.M. and tends to interfere with the administration of justice by trying to overawe the Magstrate in respect of the two complaints pending in his court. To borrow the words of B. K. Mukherjea, J. in Brahma Prakash Sharma v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 10: (1954 Cri LJ 238), Nawal Thakur

'tends to... deter actual and prospective! litigants from placing complete reliance upon Court's administration of justice...it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties.'

21. The action of respondent Nawal Thakur clearly amounts to criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c). More so, as it is a part of his regular conduct judicially noticed by this Court from time to time. We have already referred to the order of 14 October, 1981 (in Contempt Petition (Criminal) 6 of 1980); that dated 11 December, 1980 (in Contempt Petition (Criminal) 10 of 1980) and also the one in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Naval Thakur, 1991 Cri LJ 1377).

22. After finding that respondent Nawal Thakur is guilty of having committed criminal contempt of court, which we hereby; record, the question is about the action which' should be taken against him.

23. An apology on oath has been given by respondent Nawal Thakur in his affidavit of 27 May, 1992. It is contained in paragraph (iv). We have reproduced it in the! earlier part of this judgment. Does the apology amount to a bona fide apology worthy of acceptance by this Court?

24. We begin by borrowing the words of1 that great Indian Judge, Justice Vivian Bose who, while adorning the Bench of the Nagpur; High Court, said in Sub Judge, First Class, Hoshangabad v. Jawahar Lal Ramchand Parwar, AIR 1940 Nagpur 407, that (at page 408):

'An apology is not a weapon of defence forged to purge the guilty of their offences. It is not an additional insult to be hurled at the heads of those who have been .wronged. It is intended to be evidence of real contritness, the manly consciousness of a wrong done, of an injury inflicted, and the earnest desire to make such reparation as lies in the wrong doer's power. Only then is it of any avail in a court of justice...'

B. N. Banerjee, J. very truely said, while speaking for a unanimous judgment of a Five-Judge Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Hiren Bose, con-temner, AIR 1969 Cal 1 : (1969 Cri LJ 40) that:

'...to submit an apology as an apologia to the contemner's other contentions is to exhibit a desire to escape punishment without really being contrite...'

25. The 'apology' should be 'real, sincere and genuine, an outpouring of a penitent heart and not merely an idle formulatory phrase'. It should not be 'a lip service to the formula which is the shorthand of a complicated historic origin, dependent on volume of legal opinions. It should not be used as a convenient device, a last desperate throw in the game of chance'. But should be 'voluntary and indicative of remorse'. (Prafulla Ranjan Sarkar v. Manindra Chandra Neogi, 1968 Cri LJ 248).

26. There has been a volume of judicial thinking, spread over several decades, about the nature and quality of apology which merits acceptance by a court of law. Without details, we may only make a reference to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in State v. S.N. Dikshit, 1973 Cri LJ 1211 : (1973 All LJ 180); Kalloo Mal Visheshwar Prasad v. Secretary to Government of U.P., Lucknow, 1974 Cri LJ 529 : (AIR 1974 SC 258); State of U.P. v. Deg Raj Singh, 1983 Cri LJ 866; State of U.P. v. Radhey Shyam Tripathi, 1983 Cri LJ 1153; Bombay High Court in Abdul Jabbar Taj v. R.K. Karanjia, AIR 1970 Bom 48 : (1970 Cri LJ 183); Calcutta High Court in B.K. Lala v. R.C. Dutt, AIR 1967 Cal 153 : (1967 Cri LJ 350); Delhi High Court in Kuldip Rastogi v. Vishva Nath Khanna, AIR 1979 Delhi 202; and Court of its own Motion v. B.D. Kaushik, a Full Court decision of twenty-three Judges, reported in 1992 (1) Crimes 114; Hyderabad High Court in The State v. Vikar Ahmed, AIR 1954 Hyd 175 : (1954 Cri LJ 1281); Karnataka High Court in The State of Karnataka v. Shivadeva, 1976 Cri LJ 1958; Madhya Pradesh High Court in Re: District Magistrate, Rajnanigaon, 1975 Cri LJ 1776; Patna High Court in the matter of Bhola Nath Chaudhary, AIR 1961 Pat 1 : 1961 (1) Cri LJ 134); Punjab and Haryana High Court in State v. Radha Krishna, AIR 1961 Punj 113 : (1961 (1) Cri LJ 426; and Rajasthan High, Court in Sukh Raj v. Hemraj, AIR 1957 Raj 203 : (1967 Cri LJ 1057), which echo the same sentiments.

The Supreme Court has dealt with it from time to time. We may only refer to its decisions in M.Y. Shareef v. Hon'ble Judges of the Nagpur High Court, AIR 1955 SC 19: (1955 Cri LJ 133), where it observed (in paragraph 10) (at page 137) that:

'...Again an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence; nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness....'

And, in Mulkh Raj v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1197: (1972 Cri LJ 754, where it said (in pagragraph 9) (at page 755) that:

'Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace apology is shorn of penitence....'

We cannot forget, as pithily said by the Supreme Court in Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court, AIR 1974 SC 710: (1974 Cri LJ 631) (at page 643) that:

'...the courts of justice in a State from the highest to the lowest are by their constitution entrusted with functions directly connected with the administration of justice, and it is the expectation and confidence of all those who have or likely to have business therein that the courts perform all their functions on a high level of rectitude without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.

And it is this traditional confidence in the courts that justice will be administered in them which is sought to be protected by proceedings in contempt....'

27. In the present case we have already noticed the observations contained in the order of this Court dated 14 October, 1981 in Contempt Petition (Criminal) 6 of 1980. while accepting the-apology tendered by respondent Nawal Thakur that:

'...We are satisfied that the respondent is genuinely sorry for what he has done. He has also given an undertaking not to do so in future...:.'

28. The faith that this Court reposed in respondent Nawal Thakur over a decade back was clearly misplaced.

29. What should we do to ensure that majesty of law is upheld while, at the same time, taking a lenient view having regard to the description of respondent Nawal Thakur by his counsel Shri M. L. Sharma before us on June 2, 1992 that Nawal Thakur was 'a crusader for public causes in manners which are not always well advised'. Nawal Thakur has given out his age to be about 62 years in the affidavit sworn by him in these proceedings. He looked emaciated in physique. He seems to be suffering with a sense of self-righteousness and considers every public functionary in the State errant. This can only be said to be some kind of mental aberration., We do not intend to be harsh on him. We have before us the observations of the Supreme Court in S.P. Sawhney v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1991) 2 SCC 318 : (AIR 1991 SC 661), where it said (in paragraph 11) that:

'...Taking into consideration, however, the advanced age of the petitioner, his physical condition and his obsession with his claim which, has obviously made him lose balance of his mind, we are of the view that no useful purpose will be served by taking contempt proceedings against him....'

30. While we hold that respondent Nawal Thakur is guilty of having committed contempt of Court and further hold, having regard to his past conduct in particular, that the apology offered by him in these proceedings is not worthy of acceptance, yet, without imposing any harsh punishment on him, we direct him to pay a sum of rupee one by way of fine, in default whereof he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a day.