H.N.Seth, J. 1. These proceedings for punishing Sri Ram Das Tyagi, Advocate, for committing contempt of Court of the District Judge, Ghaziabad have been initiated on the basis of a report made by the District Judge. 2. THE report submitted by the District Judge and the papers accompanying the same show that on 10th March, 1980 after the District Judge had delivered judgment in S. T. No. 137 of 1977, Sri Ram Das Tyagi presented an application for releasing accused Lala Ram on bail THE District Judge directed that notice of the said application should be given to the District Government Counsel and thereafter he retired to his chambers. Reader of the Court, Sri Raghuraj Singh Tyagi, then asked Sri Ram Das Tyagi to supply a copy of the bail application, so that the same may, as directed by the District Judge, be delivered to the District Government Counsel. While furnishing the said copy to the Reader, Sri Ram Das Tyagi threw a paper-weight, kept on (he table of the Court, at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi which was hanging on the wall facing the dias and the glass fixed in the picture-frame was smashed. At the same time Sri Ram Das Tyagi uttered the following words :- "Nyayalaya Se Fauran Nyaya Prapt Nahin Hota Hai." (Immediate justice is not received from the court) THE Reader of the Court then reported the matter to the District Judge mentioning the names of the court officials in whose presence Sri Ram Das Tyagi had acted in the aforesaid manner. THE District Judge asked the witnesses mentioned in Reader's report to file affidavits, whereupon four employees of the court including the reader filed their respective affidavits describing the incident in the manner mentioned above. THE District Judge then made a reference to this Court for taking contempt of court proceedings against Sri Ram Das Tyagi, Advocate. This Court took cognizance of the contempt said to ha.ve been committed by Sri Ram Das Tyagi and on 25th of August, 1980 directed that requisite notice be issued to him. After notice was served upon Sri Tyagi he instead of appearing before this Court sent an application in the month of October, 1980 expressing his inability to personally appear before the Court and giving out his own version of the incident. After notice was served upon Sri Tyagi he instead of appearing before this Court sent an application in the month of October, 1980 expressing his inability to personally appear before the Court and giving out his own version of the incident. He also claimed that His case may be heard only by Hindu Judges and urged that no non-Hindu or a Muslim Judge should try the same. The case set up by Sri Tyagi in paragraph of the application was that even though what had been reported by the Reader of the Court was correct, he had not given a complete version of the incident.According to him the Reader had merely mentioned that the applicant had broken the picture of Mahatma Gandhi and had uttered that immediate justice was nod available from the Court.In fact the applicant had, over and above that also said that Mahatma Gandhi was not fit to be called Father of the Nation and that he was merely a stooge in the hands of foreign company.In his application Sri Tyagi also made certain averments lauding Sri Subhash Chandra Bose and asserted that he did not commit any offence. According to him call of the time was that law should be practised only when statues of Gandhi are removed from all law courts in the Country and in its place statues of Subhash are put up and that till this is done he would go on breaking such statues. Sri Tyagi concluded his application by saying that he never intended to insult sacred law courts and that if any insult was involved, he may be excused. In the end he again stated that any decision by a non-Hindu or a Muslim Judge would not be acceptable to him. 3. Sri Tyagi addressed another communication to this Court on 24th of September, 1982 saying that the case should be transferred to Ghaziabad for trial. 4. Subsequently the presence of Sri Tyagi was secured and he engaged Sri V. C. Misra, Advocate to represent him. He filed a counter affidavit on 8th of December, 1982 owning therein that as reported by the reader of the District Judge he did say that immediate justice was not being received from the court, but he neither accepted nor questioned the correctness of the report made by the reader concerning his conduct in throwing a paper-weight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi. In the affidavit Sri Tyagi criticised the District Judge by saying that he was in the habit of sitting in court at 11 a. m. and retiring at 3 p. m., thereby causing great inconvenience to the members of the Bar. According to him the action of the District Judge was detrimental to the interest of the litigants and that during his tenure it became impossible to get any application decided early and bail applications never used to be disposed of the same day. He claimed that he (Sri Tyagi) was accustomed to leading disciplined life and that he has been active member of Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh and belonged to Bhartiya Janta Party and that his innerself revolts as and when he finds something detrimental being done to the interest of people. He took pains to justify his remark regarding non- receipt of prompt justice from the court in the context that justice delayed was justice denied. In paragraph 12 of the affidavit he mentioned thus :- "That no doubt the deponent did utter the alleged words, but it was in good faith, in high spirit and without any intention to scandalise the Court, but was a fair criticism of the prevailing policy of the then District Judge and the deponent is advised that the same does not constitute contempt of Court." In paragraph 14 of the affidavit he stared that he had great regard for judiciary and it is for this reason that it was not acceptable to him that any body whether belonging to Executive or Legislative or public or even the Judiciary should act or behave in a manner which may result into losing faith of people in judiciary or that judiciary may be scandalised and this was the intention behind uttering the alleged words by him. He concluded the affidavit by saying that in case the court comes to the conclusion that in any manner whatsoever inadvertently any contempt has been committed by him he tendered unqualified apology. When the case was taken up for' hearing on 18th January, 1983 Sri V. C. Misra, learned counsel appearing for' Sri Tyagi sought for an adjournment of the case so as to enable him to file a supplementary counter affidavit. Sri Tyagi filed a supplementary counter affidavit before us on 20th of January, 1983. When the case was taken up for' hearing on 18th January, 1983 Sri V. C. Misra, learned counsel appearing for' Sri Tyagi sought for an adjournment of the case so as to enable him to file a supplementary counter affidavit. Sri Tyagi filed a supplementary counter affidavit before us on 20th of January, 1983. In this affidavit he asserted that inadvertently he bad failed to reply to the allegations in the report of Syed Mohd. Mehdi (official of this Court) dated 5th of April, 1982 under an impression that the words used by him viz. immediate justice is not received from the court only constituted the contempt when in fact the report contained one more allegation to the following effect:- "Instanteneously threw a paper-weight kept at the table of the Court at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi on the wall facing the dias and set in the glass-frame breaking its glass " and went on to deny the fact that he ever threw a paper-weight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi as alleged. He asserted that the said allegations had been made falsely with a view to make out a case of contempt of court against him. He suggested that the picture might have been broken due to some fault of the staff of the District Judge and it was with a view to save their skin that the staff had made the allegations against him. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit Sri Tyagi again asserted that he never intended to either insult or scandalise the Court in any manner whatsoever. No doubt he wanted to maintain the dignity and honour of the Court and the faith of the people and, therefore, he wanted early justice for the people. He re-asserted that be had great regard for judiciary and he is young Advocate practising since 1977 and that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that in any manner whatsoever he inadvertently committed any contempt he expressed his regrets and tendered an unqualified apology. 5. The material on the record clearly indicates that Sri Tyagi presented a bail application for the release of accused Lala Ram on bail after the conclusion of S.T. No. 137 of 1977. On receiving the application the District Judge had directed that notice should be given to the District Government Counsel so that appropriate orders may be passed after hearing him. On receiving the application the District Judge had directed that notice should be given to the District Government Counsel so that appropriate orders may be passed after hearing him. After passing the aforesaid order the District Judge retired to his chambers and the reader of the court asked Sri Tyagi to give him a copy of the bail application so that notice may be given to the District Government Counsel as directed by the Court. THE version of the court- officials shows that at this stage Sri Tyagi threw a paper-weight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi hung at the back of the dias, breaking its glass, and also uttered that immediate justice is not received, from the court.THE stand taken by Sri Tyagi in the affidavits filed by him before this Court, however, is that he did not throw any paper-weight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi and that he had merely stated that immediate justice is not received from the court. He contended that this was a general statement made by [him about delay occurring in law courts. According to him such a general statement that there is delay in obtaining justice from law courts cannot be construed as offering insult to or committing contempt of any particular court. 6. The first question that arises for determination is whether the version given by the court-staff that Sri Tyagi, apart from uttering the words that immediate justice is not received from the count, also threw a paper-weight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi is correct. Sri V. C. Misra, learned counsel appearing for Sri Tyagi vehemently argued that Sri Tyagi is an Advocate and he has sworn an affidvait denying on oath that he did not do any such thing. THE version of the court officials or the affidavits sworn by them should not be preferred to an affidavit sworn by an Advocate. It is true that an affidavit sworn by member of a noble profession is entitled to weight, but then there is no law that where an Advocate swears an affidavit the same must necessarily be accepted. It will depend upon circumstances of each case whether the said affidavit should or should not be accepted. It is true that an affidavit sworn by member of a noble profession is entitled to weight, but then there is no law that where an Advocate swears an affidavit the same must necessarily be accepted. It will depend upon circumstances of each case whether the said affidavit should or should not be accepted. In the instant case when the allegation made by the officials of the court to the effect that Sri Tyagi had thrown a paper-weight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi was brought to the notice of Sri Tyagi in the month of October, 1980 he made an application to this Court admitting the said fact. Not only this, he, in that application, asserted that the picture of Mahatma Gandhi lightly did not deserve to be placed in law courts and that instead of his picture, the picture or statue of Subhash Chandra Bose should be kept. Again when Sri Tyagi filed the first affidavit before this Court, he did not mention therein anything about his throwing of paper-weight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi. He contended himself merely by owning that he had stated before the reader that immediate justice is not received from the court and asserting that this was a correct state of affairs. It is only in the supplementary counter -affidavit that has been filed on 20th of January, 1983 that Sri Tyagi has for the first time denied having thrown the paper-weight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi. Sri Misra, learned counsel appearing for Sri Tyagi, vehemently urged that in the face of the affidavits sworn by Sri Tyagi his unsworn statements appearing i:a the: application made in the year 1980 should be ignored and the case should be decided only in the light of the affidavits filed by him. According to him once the notice initiating contempt proceedings had been served upon Sri Tyagi he naturally felt that he was being summoned to court for being punished and, therefore, in angen, he not only owned up all the allegations contained in the report of the reader of the court but also said something more. We are unable to accept the submission made by Sri V. C. Misra. We are unable to accept the submission made by Sri V. C. Misra. Even though the averment made in the application sent by Sri Tyagi prior to the filing of the counter and supplementary counter affidavits had not been made on oath nonetheless they indicated that shortly after the incident Sri Tyagi accepted as correct the allegations contained in the report of the reader of the court in this regard. This admission contained in the said application cannot, in our opinion, be explained away on the ground that once the Court had summoned Sri Tyagi in connection with the present proceedings, he would not only admit wrong facts but would also say something which may incriminate him further. This is not a natural conduct of a person and is not at all expected from a person who is following the profession of law, In view of the fact that Sri Tyagi had admitted in his application sent to this Court that he had thrown paper-weight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi and had also at the same time uttered the words that immediate justice is not received from the court and that throwing of the paperweight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi is being denied by Sri Tyagi for the first time in the supplementary counter-affidavit that has been filed by him on 20th January, 1983, we are inclined to accept the affidavits of the reader and other officials of the court of the District Judge and on their basis find that after the District Judge had directed that notice of tie bail application moved by Sri Tyagi be given to the District Government Counsel and he had retired to his chamber Sri Tyagi handed over a copy of that application to the Reader and at the same time threw a paper-weight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi and also uttered the words that immediate justice is not received from the court. 7. In the context it is obvious that what Sri Tyagi actually wanted was that the District Judge should have granted bail to his client immediately on his moving the application and that he got annoyed when the District Judge directed the notice of the application to be given to the District Government Counsel. 7. In the context it is obvious that what Sri Tyagi actually wanted was that the District Judge should have granted bail to his client immediately on his moving the application and that he got annoyed when the District Judge directed the notice of the application to be given to the District Government Counsel. This inference receives considerable support from the following allegation made by Sri Tyagi in paragraph 8 of his counter-affidavit "That in the S. T. No. 137 of 1977 State v. Amar Singh, co-accused similarly placed was bailed out and the concerned papers were on the record of the case before the Court, but the habit of early rising of Sri INdra Pal Singh resulted into its non- disposal and quick disposal and he rose on the said date at 3 p. m." IN the circumstances the remark made by Sri Tyagi on that occasion to the effect that immediate justice was not available Scorn the court, was obviously meant to convey that immediate justice was not being, available in the court of the District Judge, Ghaziabad. The statement in the circumstances cannot be construed as legitimate expression of opinion about delays generally taking place in law courts. 8. ACTION of Sri Tyagi in throwing the paper-weight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi placed on the wall behind the dias of the Court and his uttering the words that immediate justice was not available from the court when his attempt to obtain bail from the court on that very date was frustrated, was clearly directed towards hurling insult at District Judge's court and exhibiting his contempt for that court. In our opinion, this amounts to gross contempt of court. Sri V. C. Misra then submitted that Sri Tyagi is a junior Adovcate who enrolled only in the year 1977. He has in various paragraphs of the counter and supplementary counter-affidavits as also in the application that was sent by him to this court in October, 1980 expressed bis unconditional apology. In the circumstances, the apology tendered by Sri Tyagi may be accepted and the proceedings be dropped. 9. Before an apology tendered by a contemner can be accepted, the court has to be satisfied that the apology is bonafide and that the contemner realises his mistake and is genuinely sorry for the same. In the circumstances, the apology tendered by Sri Tyagi may be accepted and the proceedings be dropped. 9. Before an apology tendered by a contemner can be accepted, the court has to be satisfied that the apology is bonafide and that the contemner realises his mistake and is genuinely sorry for the same. A perusal of the application which Sri Tyagi sent to this Court shows that although he stated that he did not intend to commit contempt of Court and that in any case he wanted to be excused, he justified his action in throwing the paper-weight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi. Likewise in the first affidavit he criticised the District Judge and justified bis action in uttering that prompt justice was not available in his court. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed before this Court he went back on his earlier admission and denied having thrown the paper-weight at the picture of Mahatma Gandhi. As we have already observed, it is difficult to accept as correct this denial made in the supplementary counter affidavit. It thus appears that even at this stage Sri Tyagi is not prepared to fairly place the correct facts before the Court. There is nothing in the application or the affidavits sworn by Sri Tyagi to show that he realizes that what he did was wrong and that he is genuinely sorry for the same. In the circumstances, the regret expressed by him in his application and the affidavits filed before the Court, seems, to be merely a lip-service. 10. APART from the fact that we are not satisfied that the-apology tendered by Sri Tyagi is genuine and bona fide, we are of opinion that the manner in which he tried to hurl insult at the court of District Judge, Ghaziabad and exhibited his contempt for the court is quite serious and that it is not a fit case in which proceedings against Sri Tyagi should be dropped merely on bis tendering apology. In the result, we find that Sri Ram Das Tyagi is guilty of committing serious contempt of the court of the District Judge, Ghaziabad. However, considering that Sri Tyagi is a junior Advocate, we take a lenient view of the matter and direct that he be sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days only and further to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- (three hundred rupees). However, considering that Sri Tyagi is a junior Advocate, we take a lenient view of the matter and direct that he be sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days only and further to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- (three hundred rupees). In case of default of payment of fine; Sri Tyagi will undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen day, Sri Tyagi is present in Court and he has been taken in custody accordingly.