J. M. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant an Advocate practising in the City Magistrates Court. Ahmedabad against the order of conviction passed against him by the learned City Magistrate 10 Court Ahmedabad in Summary Case No. 884 of 1671. He is convicted of an offence under sec. 228 of the Indian Penal Code and an order of admonition has been passed against him. ( 2 ) THE facts leading rise to this appeal briefly stated are as under :-The State had filed prosecution against one Vinodbhai for an offence punishable under sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant in that case was one Purshottam Lallubhai one of the two injured persons. Another injured person was his wife Bai Manjula. The case was registered as Criminal Case No. 337 of 1971. Purshottam Lallubhai was examined as a witness in the Court of City Magistrate 10 Court Ahmedabad on 20-4-1971. His evidence is recorded at Ex. 8. First Information Report given by him is Ex. 9. Bai Manjula who according to the prosecution was the legally wedded wife of Purshottam was examined on the same day. Her evidence is recorded at Ex. 10. A few other witnesses were examined earlier. Their examination is not material for our purposes. The case came to be adjourned to 26-5-1971. Evidence of Sakarben wife of one Chhotalal and sister of Purshottam the informant was partly recorded. Her examination in chief was over. The appellant was appearing as the advocate for accused Vinod in that case. He started the cross examination of witness Sakarben. After putting certain questions when the stage of putting the following question came this unhappy incident took place at the close of the day at 5-40 p. m. The question was put to that witness on behalf of the accused by the appellant as to whether there was marriage of Bai Manjula with the complainant Purshottam meaning thereby that the factum and the validity of the marriage were under challenge. The learned Magistrate the presiding officer of the court ruled out this question on the ground that it was irrelevant. The advocate appearing for the accused Vinod feeling that this question was relevant repeated the question and gave an application stating therein the question put by him which is on the record of that particular case in Miscellaneous file at Ex 9. The advocate appearing for the accused Vinod feeling that this question was relevant repeated the question and gave an application stating therein the question put by him which is on the record of that particular case in Miscellaneous file at Ex 9. The learned Magistrate finding that this question was being repeated in spite of his giving a ruling that the question was irrelevant felt that this was an unruly conduct on the part of the advocate and it was interruption with his discharge of duty in the administration of justice. He therefore took cognizance of the offence under sec. 228 of the Indian Penal Code and oral show cause notice was given to the appellant as to why he should not be convicted of the offence in question. The appellants examination was made. He was asked whether he was ready to tender apology. The appellant said that he had not committed any contempt of the court. He was putting this question in the interest of the party so even though the court disallowed the question he had asked it again. His further explanation is that this question was not on record so to bring it on record he had asked this question. At that stage the learned Magistrate asked him whether he wants to tender apology about behaving in such an unruly. manner he declined it. The learned Magistrate thereupon recorded the order of conviction and the order of admonition which are under challenge before me in this appeal. ( 3 ) MR. H. K. Thakore learned advocate appearing for the appellant urged that on perusing the complaint Ex 9 of the particular case it appears that the incident of assault took place according to the prosecution as Vinod the brother of Bai Manjula and parents of Bai Manjula did not approve of the so called marriage of Bai Manjula with Purshottam the informant. According to the prosecution itself that was the motive for the crime in question. It was therefore contended that the appellant advocate who was defending accused Vinod in that case was justified in putting this question with a view to bring on record the material question whether there was any such marriage and whether that marriage was valid in law meaning thereby whether necessary ceremonies were performed to constitute a valid marriage between the parties. It was further contended by him that such a question was put to witness Manjulaben who was examined earlier and the answer to that question has come on the record. It was submitted by Mr. Thakore that in the courts subordinate as well as this court day in and day out it happens that the Presiding Officer of the court expresses a particular opinion on the question arising before him and the advocate concerned is told about it. In spite of it the advocate persists in arguing the question posed and tries to persuade the court that the opinion expressed was not correct. If in such circumstances on account of such persistence the Presiding Officer of the court becomes hyper sensitive and becomes more touchy it will result in the meek submission at the Bar. Members of the Bar have to discharge their duties independently and fearlessly for helping the cause of administration of justice. Mr. Thakore submits that no doubt a member of the Bar is equally expected to be respectful to the court and has to courteously try to persuade the court and to bring it round to his view if he feels that his view is correct. Mr. Thakore submits that the advocates are the officers of the court. They owe duty to the court as well as to their clients. Members of the Bench and the Members of the Bar have to develop a mutual regard and respect for each other if the interest of the administration of justice is to be furthered. If there is development of mutual antagonism this noble cause would suffer. It is urged by him that even if all the facts stated by the Presiding Officer viz. respondent No. 2 in his judgment are held to be true the offence in question is not established. Mr. Joshi (appellant) never intended to offer any insult or to cause any interruption in the work of the court within the meaning of sec. 228 of the Indian Penal Code. respondent No. 2 in his judgment are held to be true the offence in question is not established. Mr. Joshi (appellant) never intended to offer any insult or to cause any interruption in the work of the court within the meaning of sec. 228 of the Indian Penal Code. He was under a belief that the question that he intended to put and which he repeated in spite of the ruling given by the learned Magistrate to the contrary was a material question for the decision of the case He had not made any remark which would justify the court to come to the conclusion that the decorum of the court was not being maintained and an attempt was made to insult the court or to cause any interruption to the court within the meaning of sec. 228 of the Indian Penal Code. On such persistence even if it may have annoyed the Presiding Officer of the court in the heat of moment he should not have taken such a drastic action against the practising advocate. If such a drastic action is taken against a practising advocate in these circumstances it would adversely affect the cause of administration of justice. It will result in a meek submission of the advocates to the Presiding Officer of the court. They will not be able to discharge their duties efficiently and the necessary consequence would be that the noble cause of administration of justice would suffer. It was not at all a case of any dis respect shown by the advocate to the court by making any remark or any gesture. It was therefore contended that this order of conviction and the order of admonition should be set aside. ( 4 ) IN reply to these arguments advanced on Behalf of the appellant learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. A. H. Thakkar appearing for respondent No. 1 State urged that this was a case of a bona fide error on part of the learned Magistrate. At a given moment in an exasperated condition probably as this advocate persisted in putting the same question which was dis allowed twice and note regarding it was made in the written application given by the advocate (appellant) the learned Magistrate could not coolly think as to how he should meet with the situation and prevent the appellant from persisting in putting this question to the witness. It was submitted by him that this was not a case where the learned Magistrate wanted to run down the members of the Bar or to show any dis respect to them and to prevent them from discharging their duties. According to Mr. Thakkar this was an unhappy incident. At the same time he urged that on the facts established in the case and referred to in the judgment he is not in a position to urge that this order of conviction is maintainable. He therefore submitted that this impugned order be set aside and it was not a case where any remarks needed to be passed either against the advocate (appellant) or against the Presiding Officer of the court. ( 5 ) MR. Damani learned City Magistrate who is present in the court as he was made respondent No. 2 has submitted that he has nothing to say. ( 6 ) ON going through the evidence adduced in the case and the circumstances under which this unhappy incident took place it appears to be a very unhappy incident. It is needless to emphasis that the decorum of the court has got to be maintained. It is in the interests of the members of the Bar as well as the members of the Bench that the decorum of the court is maintained. It is needless to emphasise that for maintaining that decorum and for seeing that the interests of administration of justice are furthered these two important limbs of the same body should develop mutual regard and respect for each other. They should try to avoid mutual antagonism. If the circumstances are created which prevent the members of the Bar from acting independently and fearlessly it is the cause of justice that suffers. If the members of the Bar do not behave properly or become unruly it is that very cause that would suffer. The Presiding Officers of the court should not be oblivious of the fact that the members of the Bar are officers of the court. They owe a duty to the court as well as to their clients. It often happens in the court that an advocate puts a particular question or makes a particular submission the court on the first impression feels that the question is irrelevant or the submission is devoid of any merits and expresses its opinion in that behalf. They owe a duty to the court as well as to their clients. It often happens in the court that an advocate puts a particular question or makes a particular submission the court on the first impression feels that the question is irrelevant or the submission is devoid of any merits and expresses its opinion in that behalf. An advocate appearing in spite of it persists in his submission and the court ultimately accepts his view if the court becomes touchy and hyper sensitive on account of such persistence and takes such proceedings and punishes the advocate for such an offence the cause of administration of justice will undoubtedly suffer and the members of the Bar will be prevented from discharging their duties efficiently. It is therefore said often that such a course is to be adopted very rarely. If the court reflects coolly when such occasions arise postpones taking of such action immediately on arousing of an emotional feeling such untoward incidents could be avoided. ( 7 ) IT appears that the assault incident happened according to the prosecution as Bai Manjulas marriage with Purshottam the informant was not approved of by her parents and brother Vinod the accused in the criminal case. That averment is made in the complaint. According to the informant the marriage contracted was civil marriage and that was done without the consent of the parents of Bai Manjula and consequently Bai Manjulas parents and brother Vinod (accused) were protesting against the said marriage. He had come into contact with Bai Manjula as his brother in law Chhotalal i. e. husband of Sakarben was residing in the neighbourhood of Bai Manjula in Rupa Lavars Pole. It was his case that due to the aforesaid marriage of his with Bai Manjula which was a civil marriage Bai Manjulas brother and others were keeping enmity against them. That incident took place when he and Bai Manjula were leaving the place of the said Chhotalal. It is thus evident that the motive suggested by the prosecution itself was the inimical relations on account of the said marriage. A question was put to Bai Manjula regarding it on the previous occasion. She stated in her evidence that it was not true that she had not married Purshottam. Probably the defence suggested that the relations between these two persons were not really the relations of married persons. A question was put to Bai Manjula regarding it on the previous occasion. She stated in her evidence that it was not true that she had not married Purshottam. Probably the defence suggested that the relations between these two persons were not really the relations of married persons. It may also be possibly urged that this question is relevant for the purpose of proving the mitigating circumstance in awarding the punishment in case such an incident had taken place. It is not necessary for me to express any opinion about the correctness of the opinion expressed by the learned Magistrate that this question was irrelevant as I am not called upon in this appeal to answer that question. ( 8 ) IT appears from the judgment of the learned Magistrate that when such a question was put in relation to the marriage to witness Sakarben in her cross examination by the appellant the learned Magistrate stated ruled out as it is irrelevant. The appellant advocate gave an application to bring on record the manner in which that question was put possibly with a view to show that such a question was disallowed by the court. It may be that he wanted to bring on record that position to enable him to make submission in that behalf in the Superior Court. It does not appear from the record of the case that the learned Magistrate had given proper hearing and after giving such a proper hearing ruled out such a question giving a ruling question was irrelevant. In these circumstances mere persistence of the advocate in putting this question again could not by any stretch of imagination be said that this act was done with an intention of offering any insult or to cause any interruption to the court within the meaning of sec. 228 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not suggested that the tone employed by the advocate in persisting this question was such as to create an impression in the court hall that the decorum of the court was not maintained and insult was being offered to the court. As said earlier no remark was made by the appellant advocate to derogate the status of the Presiding Officer of the court. As said earlier no remark was made by the appellant advocate to derogate the status of the Presiding Officer of the court. No gesture was done which would even indirectly suggest that the advocate concerned wanted to run down the Presiding Officer of the court or in any manner show any disrespect to the court. It could hardly be said that such interruption would be an interruption within the meaning of sec. 228 of the Indian Penal Code so that the offence under that section could be said to have been established. If such a meaning is given to the word interruption to any public servant while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding it will be in my opinion a travesty of law. The Presiding Officer of the court for maintaining the decorum of the court and for furthering the interest of administration of justice should restrain himself from taking up such a course so lightly. It is only on very rare occasions that the court would be justified in taking such drastic action against a member of the Bar. It does not mean that the members of the Bar are absolved from the duty they owe to the court. Both have to restrain themselves and it is the mutual tolerance and mutual respect and regard that could create such circumstances and that would be in the interests of both. I feel that this particular case may be a case of misunderstanding between the two as has been stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. The order of conviction and admonition passed in this case cannot be sustained in law. ( 9 ) BEFORE I part with this case I propose to quote very important and weighty observations made by an eminent Judge. Bin Mohammad J. in Mahant Hakumat Rai v. Emperor A. I. R. 1943 Lahore 14 to which my attention was drawn by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant at page 16 observes after considering the facts established:-COUNSEL for the appellant has urged that no offence whatever was committed by Mahant Hakumat Rai (advocate) even if the statement of facts made by the Magistrate was taken to be correct. His contention is that lawyers in the discharge of their duties have some time to use expressions which may not be palatable to the court but which are never used either with the intention of offering any insult or causing any interruption to the court within the meaning of sec. 228 Penal Code. He further urges that in fact in the present case some of these remarks were invited by the Magistrate himself. In this connection he argues that the observation made by the Magistrate in The very first instance that Mahant Hakumat Rai had put unnecessary questions to the prosecution witnesses was altogether uncalled for in the circumstances of the case and inasmuch as it was made within the hearing of Mahant Hakumat Rais clients who happened to be literate and cast an undeserved reflection upon him he was justified in protesting against it as It might have prejudiced him in his profession. What happened subsequently neither constituted interruption nor insult in any sense of the term. He finally referred to several English cases where even stronger terms than those used in this case exchanged between the bench and Bar had been invariably ignored. Counsel for the Crown on the other hand though not seriously objecting to the expressions used by Mahant Hakumat Rai argued that the final Judge in the matter was the Magistrate himself and that if he was offended at the tone employed by the lawyer he was justified in taking action that he did the pertinent observations which follow thereafter are:-IT is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to what expressions a lawyer can use with immunity while addressing the court and what should ordinarily be tolerated by it. But looking at the matter from a broad point of view I am of the opinion that in this case the Magistrate was not in any way justified in taking the drastic action that he did against a lawyer of the standing of Mahant Hakumat Rai It is true that a lawyer should always conduct himself properly in a court of law and exert his best at all times to maintain the dignity of the court but the court has also a reciprocal duty to perform and should be not only not discourteous to a lawyer but should also try to maintain his respect in the eyes of his clients and the general public with whom he has to deal in his professional capacity. Hyper sensitiveness on the one side or rudeness on the other must be avoided at all costs. Both the Bench and the Bar are the two arms of the same machinery and unless they work harmoniously justice cannot be properly administered. In my view therefore mutual adjustment and not mutual antagonism should be the end in view on both sides eliminating all ideas either of domination or of servility. IN my opinion these should be the guidelines for the behaviour for the Bench as well as the Bar and if they are kept in mind such unhappy incidents could be avoided and the decorum of the court and dignity of the members of the Bar could be well maintained. The learned single Judge has quoted some remarks made in Cawald on Contempt of Court edition 3 at page 51. They are :-AN over subservient Bar would be one of the greatest misfortunes that could happen to the administration of justice. At the same time as stated by Warvelle on Legal Ethics at page 182:-A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall detract from the dignity of the court of which he is himself a sworn officer and assistant. He should at all times pay deferential respect to the Judge and scrupulously observe the decorum of the court room. At the same time as stated by Warvelle on Legal Ethics at page 182:-A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall detract from the dignity of the court of which he is himself a sworn officer and assistant. He should at all times pay deferential respect to the Judge and scrupulously observe the decorum of the court room. A rule framed by the American Bar with respect to the advocates duties to the court sums up the position thus:-A self respecting independence in the discharge of professional duty without denial or diminution of the courtesy and respect due to the Judges station is the only proper foundation for cordial personal and official relations between Bench and Bar. AT pages 17 and 18 quotations have been taken from a treatise on Professional Ethics by the late Sundara Aiyar J. of the Madras High Court page 99. Those observations are:-WITHOUT failing in respect to the Bench it is the duty of the members of the Bar to assert their just rights to be heard by the tribunal before which they are practising. They should be fearless and independent in the discharge of their duties they would be perfectly right in protesting against irregular procedure on the part of any Judge and if the advocate is improperly checked or found fault with that is not if any observations are made on the merits of the case but if the advocate himself is improperly dealt with he should vindicate the independence of the Bar. He would be perfectly justified in insisting on getting a proper hearing and he should have the right to object to any interruption with the course of his argument such as to disturb him in doing his duty to his client. AGAIN at page 105 the same learned author observes:- tact patience straight forward conduct are all necessary to enable the advocate to get on properly with the court but while patience is required and should be practiced the advocate would not be doing his duty if he did not protest against improper interference on the part of the Presiding Judge with his conduct of the cause. The advocate is entitled to much indulgence especially in the conduct of an original suit because he knows his case while the Judge does not and the Judge cannot often expect to know the case or the relevancy of every question until he has waited for a considerable time ( 10 ) BENCH and the Bar have to keep in mind the aforesaid material observations made while performing their respective functions assigned to them. ( 11 ) EVEN if it is felt that the persistence in repeating the question even after it was over ruled orally and after the application was given was according to the learned Magistrate not justified he should have been slow in taking up such drastic action against a member of the Bar. ( 12 ) THE result is that the appeal succeeds. ( 13 ) THE appeal is allowed. The order of conviction as well as the order of admonition is set aside. He (appellant advocate) is acquitted of the offence he was charged with. .