V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) SHRI Samvatsar, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. Contemner present in person with Shri G. P. Kandel Advocate. He has filed an unconditional written apology. ( 2 ) THESE contempt proceedings have been initiated at the instance of Civil Judge, Class II, Barwaha. The contemner served notice dated 5-3-1983 to the Presiding Officer of the Court, namely, Civil Judge, Class II, Barwaha, charging him with malice and favouritism. It was at the stage when an execution proceeding was pending against the contemner in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II. Barwaha, as is evident from the notice dated 5-3-1963 itself. He threatened the Presiding Officer of the Court with filing of a suit against him in case he proceeded with the auction of his goods, which formed part of the execution proceedings. ( 3 ) CONTEMNER admits having given such a notice to the Presiding Officer of the Court. It cannot be gainsaid that it is direct interference with the administration of justice, inasmuch as the Presiding Officer of the Court was ceased of the execution proceedings in execution of a decree for eviction passed against the contemner and upheld even by the Supreme Court. ( 4 ) SHRI Kandoi, learned counsel appearing for the contemner submitted that in view of the unconditional written apology submitted by the contemner, a lenient view should be taken in the matter and the time that has lapsed since service of notice and intitation of these proceedings. ( 5 ) AN apology to be effective, must come from the depth of one's heart, for the contumatious conduct that was indulged in. That cannot be used or allowed to be used as a handle or an instrument for warding off the consequences of one's contumatious act. At best it can be taken and treated as an extenuating circumstance in the matter of punishment. ( 6 ) SO far as the question of delay is concerned, going through the record it is evident that much of it is solely attributable to the contemner himself, who despite repeated notices, failed to remain present for some reason or other. ( 7 ) WE are satisfied that the notice given by the contemner directly interferes with the discharge of duty of a Judge and his essential judicial functions. ( 7 ) WE are satisfied that the notice given by the contemner directly interferes with the discharge of duty of a Judge and his essential judicial functions. As if it was not enough, copies of this notice have been forwarded to those who are least concerned with the administration of justice. The contemner professes or claims to be a Journalist. It is high time that they realised their limitations. Any interference with the administration of justice can and should not be countenanced, as it adversely tells upon the Institution. This is one such case where despite filing of an apology, the contemner does not deserve to be let off without any punishment. Section 12 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act prescribes six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/ -. We, however, feel that the ends of justice would be substantially met with, particularly in view of the unconditional written apology submitted by the contemner, if he is sentenced to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court. He is accordingly sentenced. Order accordingly. .