M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) THIS suo motu contempt proceeding would illustrate how and to what extent a person with his ingenuity can abuse the process of Court and can damage the image of this pious institution in the eye of public. ( 2 ) THIS contempt case would also provide a classic instance of the height of a criminal contempt by means of publication scandalising as also thereby towering the authority of this Court by picking up Judge X or Judge Y as the target. ( 3 ) MR. S. O. Trivedi posing himself to be a public adviser and also claiming to be working as detective of crime of Vadodara had indulged in issuing a Patrika (a publication in the form of pamphlet) which was found in the process of being distributed on 11/08/1986 by the members of staff of this Court and he was identified by them as the same Mr. Trivedi who distributed some pamphlet on 26/02/1986 when he was taken by them to the Registrar Joint Registrar and Additional Registrar of this Court. At this stage it might only be stated that the pamphlet is nothing but display of abuses to a particular Judge of this Court in his capacity as a Judge in some proceeding. The pamphlet being in Gujarati was translated into English and placed by the In-charge Additional Registrar in the form of his submission dated 21-8-1986 to the Honble the Chief Justice or this Court for transferring the papers to the Criminal Department for the purpose of the same being placed before this Court for Judicial determination alongwith pamphlet which was found to have been distributed by Mr. S. O. Trivedi the opponent herein. ( 4 ) THE Honble the Chief Justice by his order dated 22/08/1986 approved of the suggestion made in the report of In-charge Additional Registrar of this Court and the matter was then given aforesaid Criminal Misc. Application No. It is in this fashion that this contempt proceeding commenced against the respondent who happened to be the publisher and distributer of the pamphlet in question containing scandalous allegations against a sitting Judge of this Court lowering down the authority and image of this Court Rule was issued on 2-9-86 against the opponent returnable on 29/09/1986. Ultimately the matter was fixed before this Court The facts of the proceedings. Ultimately the matter was fixed before this Court The facts of the proceedings. The facts containing abuses and allegations which would tend to lower down the authority of this institution are self-contained in the pamphlet itself on the basis of which the charge against the present opponent has been framed it would therefore be appropriate to set out the charge which this Court was required to frame against present opponent on 24/07/1992 Before setting out the charge as such we would like to reproduce the order which we had an occasion to pass at the time of framing of the charge"this criminal contempt proceedings have been initiated suo motu by the High Court. The respondent Mr. S. O. Trivedi who claims to be a public adviser has published and distributed certain pamphlet in Gujarati language. In that pamphlet he has made various wild contemptuous and scurrilous allegations against Shri A. P. Ravani Judge of this High Court When this pamphlet was brought to the notice of Registry it was found that the allegations made by the respondent in the pamphlet contained per se criminal contempt of Court for the various allegations made by the respondent in the pamphlet prima facie scandalised and lowered the authority of the Court Proceedings therefore have been initiated against the respondent and a rule has been issued to him. The rule has been served to him and he has filed his reply to the rule. In his reply to the rule he has tried to justify the statements made by him in the pamphlet. In that reply he has contended that as he has made allegations against Mr. Justice A. P. Ravani in the personal capacity of Mr. Justice Ravani for which Mr. In his reply to the rule he has tried to justify the statements made by him in the pamphlet. In that reply he has contended that as he has made allegations against Mr. Justice A. P. Ravani in the personal capacity of Mr. Justice Ravani for which Mr. Justice Ravani can take criminal action against him no contempt proceedings can be initiated against him He has further contended that what he has stated in the pamphlet is fair comment in the public interest and therefore he has not committed any contempt of the Court He has also contended that this High Court has no power to issue suo motu proceedings for contempt against him We have gone though the contents of his reply Even in his oral submissions today before us the respondent submits that what he has stated in pamphlet are comments in public interest and therefore he has not committed any contempt of the Court Prima facie the contentions of the respondent are not acceptable We therefore hold that prima facie case for framing a formal charge of criminal contempt against respondent has been made out for a bare reading of the pamphlet which is a subject-matter of the contempt proceedings would show that the author of the phamplet has made a deliberate attempt to scandalise the judicial and he has tried to lower the authority of the Court We therefore frame the following charge against the respondent :charge: you Mr. S. O. Trivedi resident of 1 Sadhnanagar Kareli Baug Vadodara have published and distributed the pamphlet dated 26/02/1986 which is a printed pamphlet and which is in Gujarati language and that pamphlet has been captioned in bold type and in that caption you have stated as follows"an illustration of how it is conspired on account of extreme corruption and influence prevailing before a borne corrupt Justice A. P. Ravani to suppress an offence instead of bringing the same to light"a statement to the aforesaid effect made by you in the caption of the said pamphlet scandalises and lowers the authority of the Court4. 1 In that pamphlet you have referred to Shri P. K. Datta the Police Commissioner of Baroda having made a false affidavit and thus having committed an offence punishable u/s 193 of the Indian Penal Code After adverting the facts about that allegation you have added to the pamphlet a special note under a subject captioned For Honble High Court and there you have stated that when Shri P. K. Datta gave false evidence on oath in Special Criminal Applications Nos. 428 of 1985 and 427 of 1985 you had at that very time on oath declared before Justice Shri A. P. Ravani that Shri P. K. Datta had filed a false affidavit with a view to misleading the Honble Court and yet Shri A. P. Ravani intentionally and with a view to do injustice to you suppressed the offence4. 2 By making the aforesaid last mentioned allegation also you have scandalised the Court and lowered the authority of the Court4. 3 In the said pamphlet at page 3 you have referred to you having filed private Criminal Case No 327 of 1979 and then you have stated that at that time the Magistrate was Shri Lalaji who had through the police officers obtained a large sum by way of bribe from the accused against whom you had filed the said criminal case and on account of that with a view to helping the accused in that case and with a view to screening the accused in that case from legal punishment with the assistance of police officers hatched a conspiracy and the said Shri Lalaji the learned Magistrate had obtained the previously prepared police report as per the conspiracy and fraud and Shri Lalaji the learned Magistrate intentionally kept you and your advocate in dark and without giving you an opportunity of being heard on a police report and without giving you an opportunity of examining your witnesses contrary to the provisions of law dismissed your complaint and the said Shri Lalaji obtained bribe from the offenders and he openly illegally discharged all offenders without conducting case against them. The aforesaid allegations made by you in the said pamphlet also scandalises the Court and lowers the authority of the Court of the Magistrate Shri Lalaji in whose Court you had filed the Criminal Case No 327 of 19794. The aforesaid allegations made by you in the said pamphlet also scandalises the Court and lowers the authority of the Court of the Magistrate Shri Lalaji in whose Court you had filed the Criminal Case No 327 of 19794. 4 In the said pamphlet in para 5 you have stated that the High Court of Shri A. P. Ravani has without making any inquiry accepted as true the false statements made on affidavit by Shri P. K. Datta and Shri Ravani has thus done injustice. In that very para you have also stated that the High Court of Shri A. P. Ravani should have disposed of your application only after making inquiries about the true facts However on account of the influence of Shri P. K. Datta prevailing in the High Court Shri A. P. Ravani has suppressed the offence and intentionally has not made inquiries into the matter4. 5 The aforesaid statement made by you in pal a 5 of the pamphlet also scandalises the Court and lowers the authority of the Court4. 6 In para 6 of the aforesaid pamphlet you have stated that though you had vehemently drawn the attention of Shri A. P. Ravani to the facts stated by you in para 5 of the pamphlet Justice Shri A. P. Ravani has intentionally suppressed the fact and has intentionally made no inquiry into the matter on account of having been afraid of Shri P. K. Datta You had underlined these statements in para 6 of the said pamphlet with a view to highlighting them4. 7 In the said pamphlet on page 5 on point No 1 of para 6 you have also stated that though you had drawn the attention of the Honble High Court to the alleged fact of Shri P. K. Datta having made a false affidavit the High Court had intentionally not made the inquiry Thus you have imputed motives to the High Court and you have thus scandalised and lowered the authority of this Court4. 8 In the said pamphlet you have also stated that though you had drawn his attention Justice A. P. Ravani with a view to helping the offenders made no inquiry in S. C. A. No 428 of 1985 and he misused the authority of the High Court and you had therefore filed Criminal Misc. 8 In the said pamphlet you have also stated that though you had drawn his attention Justice A. P. Ravani with a view to helping the offenders made no inquiry in S. C. A. No 428 of 1985 and he misused the authority of the High Court and you had therefore filed Criminal Misc. Application No 1803 of 1985 against him for contempt proceedings u/s 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act and that proceeding is pending By making this statement in the aforesaid pamphlet also you have scandalised the Court and lowered the authority of the Court4. 9 On page 6 of the aforesaid pamphlet you have made a verification or a Sogandnama and under that verification you have stated that the influence of Shri P. K. Datta extends upto Justice A. P. Ravani of the High Court and with that statement you have stated that there should be no delay in making inquiry in your case contained in the said pamphlet and you have demanded immediate impartial inquiry4. 10 By making the aforesaid statement also you have scandalised and lowered the authority of the Court4. 11 Below the aforesaid verification or Sogandnama at the end of page 6 in bold types you have stated as follows"public itself can ascertain about the corruption of the High Court Justice Shri A. P. Ravani". You have made the aforesaid statement under bold types with a view to highlighting that statement and by making that statement and highlighting it you have scandalised the High Court and have lowered the authority of the High Court4. You have made the aforesaid statement under bold types with a view to highlighting that statement and by making that statement and highlighting it you have scandalised the High Court and have lowered the authority of the High Court4. 12 In the aforesaid pamphlet below the aforesaid statement just now referred to in the preceding para you have also stated that High Court Justice A. P. Ravani has falsely and fraudulently taken false note Below the aforesaid statement you have said that the corrupt High Court Judge on account of receiving bribe has observed in his judgment"i do not disbelieve the facts stated by a responsible man like Police Commissioner Shri P. K. Datta"after quoting the aforesaid statement from the judgment of Justice Ravani you have made the following statement"on reading such words in the judgment any person can think as to (what) are the scales of justice when what the Police Commissioner states on oath is false and the opponent informed the High Court to inquire into the matter on oath without making inquiry such corrupt Justice with the intention to falsify the truth takes decision without his judicial power and discretion that Shri P. K. Datta is true and opponent is false"by making the aforesaid statement in the said pamphlet also you have scandalised the Court and lowered the authority of this Court4. 13 In that pamphlet you have also made the following statement "such a corrupt Judge should be disqualified within 24 hours and removed from service Such negligent Judge would certainly send innocents to gallows"by making the aforesaid statements you have also scandalised the Court and lowered the authority of the Court4. 14 On page 6 of the said pamphlet in the last para under the heading of True Facts you have while referring to Justice Ravani stated"this foolish Judge of the High Court even cannot think as to whether there can be any case pending for decision for 10 years "by making the aforesaid the statement also you have scandalised this Court and lowered the authority of this Court4. 15 In the context of the totality of the statements made by you in the aforesaid pamphlets in the last lines of the pamphlet you have said as follows" When it is brought to the notice of the High Court Judge that case is pending for 10 years why has he not exercised his inherent powers ? And why has he not made inquiries as to why this case is pending ? Is this not the evidence of gross negligence of judicial administration "?by making the aforesaid statements you have scandalised the Court and lowered the authority of the Court thus by making the aforesaid statements in the aforesaid pamphlet you have scandalised this Court as also the Court of Shri Lalaji the learned Magistrate and you have also lowered the authority of this Court and the Court of Shri Lalaji the learned Magistrate By doing so you have committed criminal contempt punishable u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 we therefore propose to hold further proceedings against you under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 ( 5 ) AS required by sub-Section (5) of Section 17 of Contempt of Courts Act 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act the opponent was given an opportunity to file an affidavit in support of his defence to the charge For that purpose the matter was adjourned to 14/08/1992 While adjourning the matter as requested by the opponent he was also given an opportunity to file an affidavit of his witnesses in support of his defence if he wanted to do so At that stage Mr. Amit Panchal learned A. P. P. for the State drew our attention to certain statements made by the opponent in xerox copy of his reply dated 7-10-1986 and submitted that the statements made in that reply would also tantamount to contempt of Court but in our order dated 24/07/1992 we made it clear that as the rule came to be issued to the opponent on 2-9-1986 we did not propose to consider the averments and allegations made by the opponent in his reply dated 7-10-1986 which the opponent produced in the form of a xerox copy at or about the time when the charge was framed against him from the standpoint of initiating contempt proceeding arising therefrom Mr. Panchal also referred to the statements made by the opponent in his application dated 22-7-1992 but the question of contempt proceedings being taken or not as arising from the said statements was also kept open to be decided later on what the opponent has to say in his various affidavits-in-reply ( 6 ) IN his first application dated 22-7-1992 the opponent made grievance of the fact that he had prepared his affidavit-in-reply to the rule on 7 and served a copy thereof to some person in the office of the Government Pleader/public Prosecutor on 8/10/1986. He while making various abuses and allegations against this very Court stated in INK the date on which he alleged to have filed such an affidavit in this proceeding. He also made a grievance about the fact that on 8-10-1986 (written in ink) he had filed his reply but he was not informed of the next date and yet for no fault on his part he was required to remain present under the process of bailable warrant of Rs. 5 0 By that application he prayed for adjournment on the ground that he did not want to proceed with the matter before this Court and wanted to move an appropriate application before the Honble Chief Justice (for transferring the matter to some other Court ). He annexed with his application his short affidavit and a xerox copy of the reply alleged to have been filed in this proceeding and we have made a brief reference to that reply. It would not be necessary to make reference of various scandalising statements made in this reply but it would be appropriate to stale that he had taken various defences which have been carved out as staled in our order reproduced hereinabove. The opponent also annexed a xerox copy of one contempt application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 2829 of 1992 alleged to have been moved by him against the State of Gujarat and both of us. But that would not be relevant for the put pose of this petition. Only observation which can be made at this very stage would be that the opponent had displayed his ingenuity in abusing the process of Court with an intention to see that no Bench of this Court could ever deal with a contempt petition against him. But that would not be relevant for the put pose of this petition. Only observation which can be made at this very stage would be that the opponent had displayed his ingenuity in abusing the process of Court with an intention to see that no Bench of this Court could ever deal with a contempt petition against him. Stretched to its logical conclusion it would mean that if such strategical abuse of process is allowed to go to its logical conclusion we are afraid perhaps no Court in this country could ever hear a contempt petition against the present opponent. Be that as it may we did adjourn the matter but the opponent was not successful in his effort to lift out this matter from this Bench. ( 7 ) REPLY No. 2 (dated 14-8-1992) styled as such by the opponent contains statements and defences which may be briefly stated as under: (1)THIS Court has no jurisdiction to file this Criminal Application against the opponent by way of a suo motu proceedings since by virtue of provision contained in Section 15 of the Act consent in writing given by the Advocate General should first be obtained before initiating such proceeding. According to his say as the In-charge Addl. Registrar has given an application under his signature (the report of In-charge Addl. Registrar as stated above) he is a third party and a private party and he should have produced Advocate Generals consent in writing. This Court has also no jurisdiction because such a petition ought to have been moved by Mr. Justice Ravani in the form of written reference. (2) This case cannot proceed further with this matter for various reasons stated in Clauses A B and C as follows: (A) Affidavit-in-reply was filed on 8-10-1986 and in the absence of original affidavit-in-reply this matter cannot proceed further only on the basis of xerox copy thereof. (B) Note of defences has been made by way of endorsement in the original reply and therefore the same being not available (the same being destroyed) this application cannot proceed further. (B) Note of defences has been made by way of endorsement in the original reply and therefore the same being not available (the same being destroyed) this application cannot proceed further. (C) Various allegations have been made and abusive language has been used against this Bench for canvassing a proposition that a conspiracy has been hatched against the opponent (3) As there is no consent from Advocate General the charge framed by this Court against the opponent is illegal (4) No confidence has been expressed by the opponent in this Bench and therefore also the matter cannot proceed further against the opponent in this Court We do not refer to various allegations made by the opponent in this respect. (5) There are several matters filed before the present Criminal Application pending and the same have been shelved whereas the subsequently instituted present criminal application has been placed for further proceeding. The opponent has then set out the particulars of old cases We do not find it necessary to refer to them as they are not relevant for the present application. The opponent has produced a xerox copy of a Gujarati newspaper cutting dated 2-12-1986 by way of his evidence ( 8 ) ON 26-8-1992 the opponent produced reply No. 3 setting out following defences (I) The opponent got printed the pamphlet as stated above but did not distribute them in public. (II) Mr. Divetia staled to be an Assistant Registrar of this Court played fraud in obtaining two of three pamphlets which were with the opponent and by offering his assistance into the matter he fraudulently obtained the pamphlets from him and as a result of such fraud the present application has seen the light of the day By altering his stand he came out with a case that someone misused his pamphlets and got a duplicate made from them and produced so as to see that a contempt proceeding was taken against the present opponent He has added in ink that Mr. Divetia has changed the original pamphlet. Divetia has changed the original pamphlet. It may be noted that the original pamphlet according to the opponent alleged to have been got printed and published by him has been annexed by way of Annexure-A to this reply and having gone through the same we find that the same contains similar allegations and abusive language as have been stated in the pamphlet in question and has been displayed in the charge reproduced hereinabove. It is further the defence of the opponent that since the allegations and abuses were made against only one Judge Shri A. P. Ravani it cannot be said that the same would amount to scandalising the Court as a wholefinally according to him he did not make any false allegations about corrupt Judges and it is no offence to set out such words about those who are in fact corrupt. In the end he has prayed for passing following order. (1) For production of papers of Raopura Police Station C R No 229/75 by making a reference that for destroying the papers of that proceeding and for suppressing Justice Shri A. P. Ravani and Chief Judicial Magistrate Shri Lalaji had taken bribe of huge amount (2) For production of Raopura C. R. No. 186/83 against Chief Judicial Magistrate Shri R. I. Lalaji and Police Officers filed by the opponent (3) For production of following as witnesses: (i) High Court Judge Shri A. P. Ravani (ii) Registrar Shri Divetia. (4) For production of various cases mentioned by the opponent to have been filed before the present Criminal Application (5) For production of the original reply dated 8 (6) For calling Justice Shri A. P. Ravani so as to enable opponent to put questions to justify his allegations (7) For calling Addl. Registrar Shri Divetia as a witness. (8) For calling the Editor of Sandesh newspaper with the original newspaper Sandesh dated 2 in which a press report against Justice Shri A. P. Ravani has been published (9) For calling Advocate Mr. M. B. Ahuja with a copy of resolution passed by the Criminal Bar Association Ahmedabad. Registrar Shri Divetia as a witness. (8) For calling the Editor of Sandesh newspaper with the original newspaper Sandesh dated 2 in which a press report against Justice Shri A. P. Ravani has been published (9) For calling Advocate Mr. M. B. Ahuja with a copy of resolution passed by the Criminal Bar Association Ahmedabad. ( 9 ) IN his additional reply No. 4 dated 4-9-1992 the opponent has declared that he had never committed contempt of Court and he is not to do so even in future as he has extreme respect faith and confidence in the Court and only bona fide desire and object he has is to get justice and he has no evil and charge (against the Court) and that if even slightest contempt is committed unknowingly he would feel very sorry (apologistic) about it He has however made a reference to a contempt petition bearing Criminal Misc. Application No 1803/1985 stated to have been filed by him against Honble Justice Shri A. P. Ravani and allied proceeding bearing Criminal Misc. Application No 1970/86 He has also made a reference to another such Special Criminal Application No 67/88 We may state here that all these proceedings have no bearing upon the present proceeding and by praying for those matters tagged with this matter in our opinion the attempt is made to get rid of this proceeding with an intention of prolonging it indefinitely ( 10 ) THE opponent has however further improved upon his stand contrary to the stand taken earlier by alleging that the pamphlet in question was never got printed by him and that some third party got it so printed in his name by making corrections and additions (in the one which he had published) in order to mislead the Court ( 11 ) FINALLY he had repeated his request to have his aforesaid witnesses called and examined for the ends of justice ( 12 ) WE have heard the opponent in person and the learned A. P. P. Mr. Amit Panchal for the State and we would now deal with the rival submissions We would like to deal with various defences which are relevant to the present proceedings fair Comment: ( 13 ) THE first of such defences is with regard to fair comment on a reference to various allegations made in the pamphlet in question and various abusive words used therein it can hardly lie in the mouth of anybody that the opponent herein was making fair comment with regard to the proceedings before the Honble Mr. Justice Ravani. In this connection we would like to make a reference to the following dicta of the Honble Supreme Court: in the case of Aswini Kumar Ghose and Anr. v. Arabinda Bose and Anr. reported in AIR 1953 S C 75 the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court has ruled as under in respect of the impugned article that appeared in the Times of India dated 30"no objection could have been taken to the article had it merely preached to the Courts of law the sermon of divine detachment But when it proceeded to attribute improper motives to the Judges it not only transgressed the limits of fair and bona fide criticism but had a clear tendency to affect the dignity and prestige of this Court. The article in question was thus a gross contempt of Court. It is obvious that if an impression is created in the minds of the public that the Judges in the highest Court in the land act on extraneous considerations in deciding cases the confidence of the whole community in the administration of justice is bound to be undermined and no greater mischief than that can possibly be imagined. It was for this reason that the rule was issued against the respondents"in Rama Dayal Markarha v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1978 S. C. p. 921 His Lordship D. A. Desai J as he then was speaking for the Bench has observed in para 13 as under"fair and reasonable criticism of a judgment which is a public document of which is a public act of a Judge concerned with administration of justice would not constitute contempt. In fact such fair and reasonable criticism must be encouraged because after all no one much less Judges can claim infallibility A fail and reasonable comment would even be helpful to the judge concerned because he will be able to see his own shortcomings limitations or imperfection in his work. The society at large is interested in the administration of public justice because in the words of Benjamin Cardozo the great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by (Benjamin N. Cardozo The Nature of the Judicial Process p. 168) Such permissible criticism would itself provide a sensible answer to sometimes ill-informed criticism of judges as living in ivory towels But then the criticism has to be fair and reasonable Such a criticism may fairly assert that the judgment is incorrect or an error has been committed both with regard to law or established facts. It is one thing to say that a judgment on facts as disclosed is not in consonance with evidence or the law has not been correctly applied Ordinarily the judgment itself will be the subject-matter of criticism and not the judge But when it is said that the judge had a pre-disposition to convict or deliberately took a turn in discussion of evidence because he had already resolved to convict the accused or he has a wayward bend of mind is attributing motives lack of dispassionate and objective approach and analysis and pre-judging of the issues which would bring administration of justice into ridicule if not infamy When there is danger of grave mischief being done in the matter of administration of justice the animadversion cannot be ignored and viewed with placid equanimity. If the criticism is likely to interfere with due administration of justice or undermine the confidence which the public rightly repose in the courts of law as courts of justice the criticism would cease to be fair and reasonable criticism as contemplated by Section 5 but would scandalise courts and substantially interfere with administration of justice. If the criticism is likely to interfere with due administration of justice or undermine the confidence which the public rightly repose in the courts of law as courts of justice the criticism would cease to be fair and reasonable criticism as contemplated by Section 5 but would scandalise courts and substantially interfere with administration of justice. As said in Grays case (1900-2 QB 36) any act done or writing published calculated to bring the court or judge of the court into contempt to lower his authority is a contempt of the court because nothing is more pernicious in its consequences than to prejudice the mind of the public against: judges of the Courts responsible for dispensing judges of the court responsible for despensing justice. "the submission of the opponent that his allegations would amount to fair comment would on the fact of it stand answered by the aforesaid decisions of the Honble Supreme Court. Defence of Justification and Request for Production of Documents: ( 14 ) IT would now be appropriate to deal with the request for calling of the witnesses including Justice Shri A. P. Ravani and calling for the various papers as more particularly described in Reply No. 3 set out hereinabove. It appears that the opponent wants to justify the allegations made by him in the pamphlet by showing that the decisions of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shri Lalaji and Mr. Justice A. P. Ravani were not correct and therefore not acceptable to the opponent so as to make him level various charges against them We do not propose to grant the request of the opponent to call for the witnesses as also to call for the documents prayed for by the opponent for the following reasons (1) Even when a contempt is alleged to have been committed in face of the High Court Section 14 sub-Section (3) provides that it shall not be necessary for the Judge or Judges in whose presence offence is alleged to have been committed to appear as witness or witnesses and the submission placed before the Chief Justice under sub-Section (2) shall be treated as evidence in the case. In the present case as can be seen from what the Honble Supreme Court has said in the following decision no such evidence can be permitted even for the purpose of justification sought to be pressed into service We may hasten to state here that in spite of the opponent having sufficient opportunity by this time to place on record some material even for alleged justification the opponent has not been able to do so. We are left with an impression that the opponent wants to protract the matter indefinitely by making the aforesaid request which sounds unreasonable on the face of it bearing in mind what has been ruled by the Honble Supreme Court in the decision which is now required to be considered (2) In Shri C. K. Daphtary Sr. Advocate and Ors v. Shri O. P. Gupta and Ors. reported in AIR 1971 S. C. p. 1132 following observations appeared in para 66:"respondent No. 1 sought to justify the extracts which we have reproduced above from para 7 of the petition His justification was in brief that he could show that in the judgment there were numerous errors He proceeded to point out a number of so-called errors to us but we told him that we were not sitting as a Court of appeal and we were willing to assume in his favour without deciding the point that there were errors in the judgment But even so there is no excuse whatsoever for using the language which he employed in these passages. It must be remembered in this connection that it was Mr. Justice Hegde who drafted and delivered the judgment He does not impute dishonesty to Mr. Justice Hegde but to Mr. Justice Shah He explains this by saying that it was Mr. Justice Shah who controlled the hearing and he would not even allow Mr. Justice Hegde to listen to his arguments We are unable to believe thiswhat has been ruled in para 81 which may also be noted in para 3. 2 of his affidavit Respondent No 1 submitted"but I am not at this stage making any attempt to contradict evidence given or to give any evidence on my side. Justice Hegde to listen to his arguments We are unable to believe thiswhat has been ruled in para 81 which may also be noted in para 3. 2 of his affidavit Respondent No 1 submitted"but I am not at this stage making any attempt to contradict evidence given or to give any evidence on my side. This will be done if and when the occasion arises or the Honble Court so orders I will have to summon some documents also for that purpose "we indicated to him during the course of the hearing that he should file his affidavit or affidavits dealing with the merits of the case but that he would not be permitted to lead any other evidence to justify contempt We have already referred to cases which show that he cannot justify contempt. If a judgment is criticised as containing errors and coupled with such criticism dishonesty is alleged the Court wearing the contempt petition would first have to act as an Appallate Court and decide whether there are errors or not. This is not and cannot be the function of a Court trying a petition for contempt. If evidence was to be allowed to justify allegations amounting to contempt of Court it would tend to encourage disappointed litigants and one party or the other to a case is always disappointed to avenge their defeat by abusing the Judge (Emphasis supplied ) ( 15 ) IN our opinion the aforesaid observations provide pin-point answer to the submission made by the opponent both for the purpose of production of documents and witnesses and for the purpose of justifying his course of conduct. It should here be noted that production of some of the documents such as the newspaper cutting with regard to some meeting of the Bar Association as also production of the witnesses in that respect would not only be irrelevant but would also be out of place for the purpose of present application Even so far as such documents and witnesses are concerned the above observation pari passu apply so as to provide an appropriate answer to the defence of justification taken by the present opponent. Defence Regarding Criminal Proceedings under Indian Penal Code: ( 16 ) IT is one of the defence of the opponent that the concerned learned Judge or concerned learned Magistrate against whom the scurrilous allegations and imputations have been made by the present opponent may take up an action for defamation or for any other offence under the appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code and from that stand-point the present application would not be maintainable against the opponent We find that there is no force in this connection of the opponent From the facts noted in the charge it can be seen that the allegations imputations and abuses have been made in connection with and in the context of judicial proceedings both before the learned Magistrate as also before this Court presided over by Honble Mr. Justice Ravani. The abuses allegations and imputations cannot be divorced from the rest of the matter contained in the pamphlet in order to examine this defence of the opponent It is true that one of the principles to be borne in mind while dealing with a contempt proceeding is to avoid confusion between personal protection of a libelled Judge and prevention of obstruction of public justice and the communitys confidence in that great process. The former is not contempt the latter is although overlapping spaces abound For this proposition reference may be made if necessary to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of. In RE S. Mulgaokar (1978) 3 S. C. C. 339 relevant para 29. But in this application on a reference to what has been stated in the charge it can be seen that the particulars of the proceedings in respect of which the opponent had made allegations are mentioned at several places in the pamphlet and in the context thereof the allegations and imputations have to be seen As stated above it would be against the public interest if we make exercise of separating the abuses allegations and imputations from the rest of the matter contained in the pamphlet in quesiton. It would not be out of place to note the observations of His Lordship A. M. Ahmadi J. in the case of M. B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors reported in AIR 1991 S. C. 1834"the tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial Officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud And when a member of the profession resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating the Judge into submission it is all the more painful. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalise which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the concerned Judge but also to the fair name of the Judiciary Veiled threats abrasive behaviour use of disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks are often designedly employed with a view to taming a Judge into submission to secure a desired order Such cases raise larger issues touching the independence of not Only the concerned Judge but the entire institution. The foundation of judicial system which is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the presiding Judicial Officers with impunity. It is high time it is realised that the much cherished judicial independence has to be protected not only from the executive or the legislature but also from those who are an integral part of the system An independent judiciary is of vital importance to any free society". ( 17 ) IN view of what is stated above there is no substance in this defence of the opponent various Other Miscellaneous Defences: ( 18 ) WE have carefully examined various other defences taken by the opponent We find no substance in such defences. They are either wholly irrelevant or not tenable per se. ( 17 ) IN view of what is stated above there is no substance in this defence of the opponent various Other Miscellaneous Defences: ( 18 ) WE have carefully examined various other defences taken by the opponent We find no substance in such defences. They are either wholly irrelevant or not tenable per se. In so far as the defence with regard to the consent of Advocate General is concerned Section 15 of the Act says that in the case of criminal contempt other than a contempt referred to in Section 14 the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. The present application has seen the light of the day upon the action taken by the High Court on its own motion and the learned. In-charge Registrar making a report to the Honble the Chief Justice as a part of internal management/ departmental process for initiating the action by the High Court on its own We have made inquiry from the office and we have been informed that there is no such Additional or Assistant Registrar as Mr. Divetia named by the opponent at various places We reiterate that the opponent as a part of strategy appeals to have cited such person as a witness who can provide no assistance in view of what has been staled above apology: ( 19 ) IT is interesting to note that in his last additional reply No 4 dated 4-9-1992 the opponent declared that he had never committed contempt of Court and he would not do so even in future as he has extreme respect faith and confidence in the Court and only out of bona fide desire to get justice he had got the pamphlet published and that he did not have any evil or ill-will (charge) against the Court and in any case even if the slightest contempt was committed it might have been committed unknowingly and that he expressed his feeling of being very sorry (apologetic) about it. This is then the nature of apology expressed by the opponent at the fag end when the opponent must have had the feeling of no escape We need not set out all the precedents which have been referred on the question of apology for the simple reason that we feel that the opponent did not have any feeling of repetance and has not even expressed apology which can be said to be genuine As a matter of fact we are at pains to state that we at effect with a feeling that the expression of apology in the aforesaid terms is nothing but a camouflage We are not the least inclined to accept the apology so tendered by the opponent While reaching this conclusion we have had in our minds a recent decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pritam Pal v. High Court of M. P. AIR 1992 S. C. 904. Oral Submissions of the Opponent: ( 20 ) THE opponent made following oral submissions besides what has been dealt with hereinabove:1 There is an addition of the word Bornin the pamphlet which has been made the subject-matter of this proceedings whereas the actual pamphlet which the opponent got printed and published did not contain such word. In our opinion even if this is true that makes no differences on the fate of this application2 The opponent submitted that knowingly of unknowingly if the contempt is committed he was prepared to unconditionally apologize We have dealt with the question of apology hereinabove and we have nothing to add to it. 3 The opponent submitted that he did not have intention to scandalise the Court We have dealt with this point at length hereinabove. 4 The opponent submitted that he got the pamphlet printed innocently. The submission sounds shocking in contradiction with the contents of the pamphlet Submission on the face of it deserves to be discharged. 5 The opponent submitted that he did not know the law. It is a matter of plain understanding that one has not to abuse a Judge in connection with some proceedings Under standing of law would not have made any difference to the opponent who was put to scandalise this institution. 6 The opponent finally submitted that he would never publish such pamphlet in future. It is a matter of plain understanding that one has not to abuse a Judge in connection with some proceedings Under standing of law would not have made any difference to the opponent who was put to scandalise this institution. 6 The opponent finally submitted that he would never publish such pamphlet in future. This submission would not make any difference in so far as the present petition is concernedconclusion: . ( 21 ) HAVING lead the pamphlet in question very minutely and having gone through the various statements made and defence raised by the opponent in his various replies dealt with by us hereinabove we have not the slightest hereinabove in saying that the opponent deliberately and intentionally wanted to scandalise this Court as also the Court of Shri Lalaji the Magistrate and to lower the authority of the Court. With that end in view he got printed published and distributed the pamphlet such as one which is the subject-matter of this contempt proceeding Looking to the language used by the opponent and the allegations made by him against Justice Shri A. P. Ravani of this Court as also against Shri Lalaji Magistrate there could be no two opinions that the opponent has committed gravest possible contempt of the Court. The opponent is therefore required to be dealt with sternly firstly for the reason that he may realise that scandalising the Court and lowering the authority of the Court is not only not a gainful proposition but the judicial institution is required to be respected for it has been charged with a duly to dispense even handed justice without fear of favour (Emphasis supplied.) and secondly the society should also have a deter rent cognizance of the fact that whosoever commits criminal contempt of the Court would have to face consequences similar to those which the present opponent as a result of this judgment shall have to face. It is with this twin purpose that we while finding the opponent guilty of the criminal contempt of the Court observe that the maximum penalty permissible under law should be inflicted upon the opponent. We therefore order that the opponent Mr. S. O. Trivedi is hereby convicted of having committed criminal contempt of Court punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Rule made absolute. .