JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The contemner is an advocate practising at the bar of this Court. He appeared for the respondent in Government Appeal No. 19 of 1969. The respondent of that appeal was prosecuted for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but the trial Judge ultimately convicted him under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment. When the Government Appeal was heard by us, we found it difficult to convict the respondent under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but on the facts found by the trial Judge we came to hold that the respondent should have been convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly we delivered judgment convicting the respondent under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The contemner filed a memorandum before our Bench to clarify our decision so that the respondent may not be detained in prison for more than one year. After hearing both sides, we rejected the memorandum on 3-5-1972. 2. An application purporting to be under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made on behalf of the respondent in the Government Appeal by the contemner. When that petition was placed before us for orders on 12-5-1972, we found the allegations in several paragraphs in the petition to be grossly contemptuous and based upon complete falsehood. The paragraphs which appeared to us prima facie objectional ran thus:- "For that even though G.A. 19/69 purports to be an appeal against acquittal of an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused or his pleader (the latter though present in Court) was not heard. For that the above plea is sufficient to treat the judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 14-5-1972 (wrongly noted for 14-4-1972) in G.A. 19/69 as a nullity.... For that the Hon'ble Court had repeatedly assured the accused (through his advocate) in open Court on 12-4-1972 that he would be released as per orders contained in the 3rd sentence of para 8 of their Lordship's judgment dated 14-4-1972. For that the Hon'ble Court had repeatedly assured the accused (through his advocate) in open Court on 12-4-1972 that he would be released as per orders contained in the 3rd sentence of para 8 of their Lordship's judgment dated 14-4-1972. For that the Hon'ble Court in pursuance of the said assurance did not hear the accused through advocate and eventually (it is found) did not even record his pleas especially regarding non-maintainability of the appeal and enhancement of the sentence as mentioned earlier in the petition.... For that on account of the non-hearing and on account of the repeated assurances, the Hon'ble Court prevented the accused from presenting his case regarding his innocence and against the enhancement of the sentence from 1 year R.I. to 2 years' R.I. especially without notice of enhancement on account of which the judgment so far as the enhanced sentence is concerned can be treated as a nullity. For that the Hon'ble Court could not keep up the assurances and inducements as seen by the order dated 3-5-1972." The contemner was accordingly asked to show cause as to why he may not be appropriately punished for contempt of this Court. 3. The contemner has tendered unqualified apology and has stated that he had no intention to malign the Court. In not supporting the allegations made in the petition, the contemner has obviously accepted the position that the allegations made therein were all false to the knowledge of the contemner. We are surprised that the contemner who is 59 years' of age and was a Magistrate until recently in the employment of the State of Orissa could think of making such false allegations in the petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contemner prevailed upon an advocate's clerk - not his - to swear to the correctness of the facts stated therein. The advocate's clerk has given an affidavit before this Court that he had no knowledge of the facts stated therein and in good faith and thinking that it was a petition of the normal type had sworn to the contents of the petition and had even stated therein that the facts contained in that petition were ture to his knowledge. 4. The wrong done in this case is not a wrong to us but it is done to the public. 4. The wrong done in this case is not a wrong to us but it is done to the public. As was indicated by their Lordships in Gobind Ram v. State of Mahardstra AIR 1972 S.C. 989 . "The publication of a disparaging statement will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability and fairness of the Judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the Court's administration of justice or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his juridicial act." Tested in this light, the allegations do constitute gross contempt. 5. We do not find any precedent where a member of the Bar was prepared to make false allegations of the type made in the present case. The contemner immediately after showing cause stated to us that he was not used to the procedure obtaining in this Court and in a thoughtless manner he presented his petition little bothering about the consequences of his action. Having listened to him and keeping our own impression of the counsel in view, we are prepared to hold that the contemner may have really made the allegations in the petition without fully realising their implications. We cannot, however, loss sight of the fact that the contemner holds a responsible position in society having been enrolled as an advocate. He is not entitled to act thoughtlessly and even if he does so, he must be prepared to bear the consequences of such thoughtless action. An irresponsible person like the contemner can indeed have no place at the Bar. 6. The conduct of the contemner has to be seriously deprecated and we must with all the emphasis at our command make it clear that such conduct cannot at all be excused. Falsehood has no room in judicial proceedings and an attempt to malign Judges of the Court on false allegations is indeed not at all behoving of any member of the society and much less one practising law at the Bar of the very Court. The contemner forgot that he was after all an officer of the Court and had an honourable place in the administration of justice. He was expected, nay obliged, to behave with traditional decorum. The contemner forgot that he was after all an officer of the Court and had an honourable place in the administration of justice. He was expected, nay obliged, to behave with traditional decorum. We are sorry to find that the contemner has acted in a most irresponsible and indecent way. 7. Though the contempt is of a gross type and the only appropriate sentence would be a substantive term of imprisonment, in view of the unconditional apology offered, the stand of the contemner that he has joined the Bar only recently after a long term of service and his repentant appearance in Court, we are prepared to take a lenient view. We would accordingly while holding that he is guilty of contempt admonish him in open Court and let him off with a warning of dire consequences that he may be visited with if there be repetition of such conduct. We shall, however, direct that he shall bear the costs of this proceeding which we assess at rupees two hundred. We direct the contemner to deposit the costs with the Registrar of this Court within a month hence. B.K. Ray, J. - I agree.