JUDGMENT : 1. - Mr. Prem Surana, Advocate, was an accused in criminal case No. 58/90. His application for exemption of attendance was rejected by Mr. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, on 6.11.93. Mr. Surana, abused Mr. Agrawal in open Court, rushed to the dias, slapped him and ran away.Disturbing Facts 2. The disturbing and shocking facts, as disclosed in the letter of Mr. Agrawal dated 6.11.93 written to the District Judge, constitute a very painful story. Here is the complaint. 3. The District Judge, vide his letter No. 225/Estt./Confidential, dated 8.11.93, referred the matter to the High Court along with the affidavits of Mr. Agrawal, Mr. Atmaram Sharma, his reader, and Rajesh, a Class IV employee, attached to that Court. 4. On receiving the reference, a notice was issued on 9.11.93 by a Division Bench in criminal contempt case No. 5272/1993 giving Mr. Prem Surana an opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be punished for committing contempt of the Court. 5. In the meantime, this incident was flashed in various newspapers. The Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Officers Association Jaipur through Shri S.P. Pathak, the Executive Member of that Association, filed a criminal contempt petition (No. 5295/93) against Mr. Prem Surana, Advocate. This case was also referred to the same Bench. Notice has been issued in this case as well. Replies have also been filed. Both the cases have come up for hearing. We propose to decide the criminal contempt case No. 5272/93 first. The result of this case will decide the fate of the other criminal contempt case (No. 5295/93). 6. After the issue of notice, Mr. Prom Surana, Advocate, has put in appearance. 7. On 3.1.94 he filed an application alongwith an affidavit in this Court, submitting his unqualified apology. 8. On 23.2.94 he filed his 'legal submissions' and 'factual submissions' separately supported by affidavits. The contempt application was seriously contested by him on merit. 9. Heard Shri S.R. Bajwa on behalf of the court and Mr. P.C. Jain for the contemner. Mr. C.K. Garg, appearing on behalf of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services Officers Association in criminal contempt case No. 5295/93, adopted the arguments of Mr. Bajwa and did not proceed with any argument. 10. On the closing day of arguments i.e. on 19.8.94 the application filed by Shri Sumner Chand Bhandari as an intervener was also heard. Mr. C.K. Garg, appearing on behalf of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services Officers Association in criminal contempt case No. 5295/93, adopted the arguments of Mr. Bajwa and did not proceed with any argument. 10. On the closing day of arguments i.e. on 19.8.94 the application filed by Shri Sumner Chand Bhandari as an intervener was also heard. According to him, this Bench has not been properly constituted by the Chief Justice. The practice of the High Court has been that the criminal contempt matters were heard by Division Benches, then why it is being heard by a Full Bench. There was nothing special about this case. The High Court has not framed any rules providing the procedure to be followed by the Bench hearing the contempt matters. A direction may be issued for framing relevant rules, In addition to that he submitted that Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is in conflict with Sections 15, 17 and 18 of the Act and is ultra vires. This application cannot be disposed of without issuing notice to the Attorney General, as vires of a Central Act is involved. In case the notice is issued, that would cause unnecessary delay in the disposal of the present contempt petition. Shri Bhandari may challenge the vires of the Act in some other criminal contempt where he appears as a counsel. Accordingly, we reject this application.Reference Valid 11. The first contention raised by Shri P.C. Jain was that the reference made to the High Court was not competent. It was no reference in the eyes of law. In order to appreciate his contention, relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act (in short 'the Act') will have to be systematically examined. 12. 'Contempt of Court' means civil contempt or criminal contempt. Section 2(b) defines 'civil contempt' and Section 2(c) defines the 'criminal contempt'. "Criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:- (i) scandalieses tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;" 13. In order to take congnizance of the criminal contempt the only point required to be considered by the High Court was to see the contents of the complaint. According to it, Shri Prom Surana, on 6.11.93, entered the court room and started abusing the Presiding Officer and said as to how he could dare to reject his application. Not only this, he rush to dias, gave him a slap and then ran away. The act amounts to lowering the authority of court in the public eyes, interference with due course of judicial proceedings and also amounts to scandalising the court. It was not a slap on the face of a Magistrate, but a slap on the judicial authority itself. This act is squarely covered within the four corners of the definition of 'criminal contempt'. 14. The Presiding Officer made a complaint to the District Judge on 6.11.93. It was referred to High Court along with the accompanying affidavits, for suitable action The High Court.took cognizance of the same and issued notice. 15. Section 15(1) of the Act empowers the High Court and the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the criminal contempt, other than the contempt referred to in section 14, on its own motion or on the motion made by (a) the Advocate General; (b) any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General, and take action. 16. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 provides that in the case of a criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take cognizance on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate General. According to this provision, cognizance of a criminal contempt can be taken by the High Court in two ways; one on a reference made to it by the subordinate court itself, and the other, on a motion made by the Advocate General. In the instant case, the High Court has exercised the powers under section 15(2) of the Act, on a reference made by Mr. Ashok Kumar Agrawal, the Presiding Officer, in whose court the contempt was committed. 17. Section 15 of the Act does not specify the source of information on which the High Court can act on its own motion. In the instant case, the High Court has exercised the powers under section 15(2) of the Act, on a reference made by Mr. Ashok Kumar Agrawal, the Presiding Officer, in whose court the contempt was committed. 17. Section 15 of the Act does not specify the source of information on which the High Court can act on its own motion. It can act on an information derived from its own sources, such as, from perusal of the records of the subordinate court or on a reading of report in the newspaper or hearing speech without there being any reference from the subordinate court or the Advocate General. In the instant case, the High Court has rightly taken cognizance on the complaint sent by the subordinate court. 18. The High Court was prima facie satisfied that the information received by it, regarding the commission of the contempt of the subordinate court, was not frivolous and the contempt alleged was not merely technical or trivial. So the cognizance was taken. 19. Supreme Court in the case Board of Revenue, U.P. vs. Vinay Chand Mishra, reported in AIR 1981 SC 723 , High Court to take suo motu cognizance of contempt of subordinate court, held that where the High Court was directly moved by a private person feeling aggrieved, not being an Advocate General, the High Court has in such a situation discretion to take cognizance on its own motion on the basis of the information supplied to it. There is no restriction on the power of the High Court in taking such congnizance. 20. In the instant case, even if the matter had been brought to the notice of the High Court from any other source that Mr. Prem Surana has slapped the Magistrate in court, the High Court was competent to take cognizance of the same. Then the High Court was fully within its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the criminal contempt on the complaint of the Presiding Officer. 21. Thus, we are of the view that the reference made to the High Court was valid and the cognizance taken by it does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Moreover, the contemner has himself accepted the complaint of the Magistrate as a 'reference' in his application dated 3.1.94.Criminal Contempt-only Between Court and Contemner 22. Once the High Court has taken cognizance of the criminal contempt on the complaint of Mr. Moreover, the contemner has himself accepted the complaint of the Magistrate as a 'reference' in his application dated 3.1.94.Criminal Contempt-only Between Court and Contemner 22. Once the High Court has taken cognizance of the criminal contempt on the complaint of Mr. Agrawal, he ceased to have any interest in the matter because the criminal contempt proceedings are only between the court and the contemner. The third party can only bring information to the court and assist it in the proceedings but he has no right in the matter. 23. Section 19(1) of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. If the contemner is punished, he will have a right of appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, but if the application is rejected, Mr. Agrawal will have no right of appeal. 24. This provision has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Barda Kant Mishra Vs. Mr. Justice Gatikrishna, CJ of Orissa High Court, AIR 1974 SC 2254 , D.N. Taneja Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1988 (3) SCC 26 wherein the court took the view that any person who moves the machinery of the court for contempt, he only brings to the notice of the court certain facts constituting contempt of court. After furnishing such information he may still assist the court but in contempt proceedings there are only two parties i.e. the court and the contemner. 25. Relying upon these two decisions, we are of the view that Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawal had to do nothing further after filing the complaint. If he has filed his personal affidavit and the affidavits of his Reader and Peon, who were present at the time of the incident, he has done so only to assist the court in coming to the conclusion whether a contempt has been made out or not. Under law, there is no further obligation on him to prove it.Standard of Proof and procedure in Criminal Contempt. 26. It was contended by Mr. Jain that the standard of proof required to establish charge of a criminal contempt is the same as in any other criminal proceedings S. Abdul Karim vs. M.K. Prakash, AIR 1976 SC 859 . 27. Admittedly, the proceedings under the Act are summary in nature. No procedure is prescribed under the Act. 26. It was contended by Mr. Jain that the standard of proof required to establish charge of a criminal contempt is the same as in any other criminal proceedings S. Abdul Karim vs. M.K. Prakash, AIR 1976 SC 859 . 27. Admittedly, the proceedings under the Act are summary in nature. No procedure is prescribed under the Act. What Section 17 contemplates is that a notice of every proceedings under Section 15 is to be served personally on the person charged and it has to be accompanied by a copy of the motion and also copies of the affidavits, if any, on which such motion is founded and in case the proceedings are commenced, on a reference by a subordinate court, a copy of the reference. There is no dispute that the copies of the reference and the affidavits filed in support of the complaint have been supplied to the contemner. There has been full compliance of this procedure. Rajasthan High Court has not framed any rules for disposing of the criminal contempt matters. The Court is to follow its own procedure keeping in view that the, procedure followed is in consonance with the established principles of procedural justice. 28. The contemner has nowhere pointed out that the proper procedure has not been followed by this Court and any prejudice has been caused to him. Full opportunity has been given to him to contest the matter and availing the same, he has filed a large number of affidavits and documents for consideration of the court.Affidavit of Presiding Officer 29. The Presiding Officer, in the instant case, should not be treated as party in the criminal contempt. He was only assisting the court. He is not personally interested in the matter. 30. The version of the Presiding Officer, which is straight- forward, coupled with the affidavits of the court staff, is liable to be accepted as correct. We are not satisfied that there is any reason to disbelieve the statements made therein. His averments made in the complaint and the affidavit in support thereof, are sufficient to establish the guilt of contempt. Had there been no affidavit of the Reader and Peon, even then, it would not have made any difference. His statement is to be accepted unless it is proved to be wrong by cogent evidence. Why should a Presiding Officer be disbelieved? Had there been no affidavit of the Reader and Peon, even then, it would not have made any difference. His statement is to be accepted unless it is proved to be wrong by cogent evidence. Why should a Presiding Officer be disbelieved? what motive, possibly he could have against Mr. Prem Surana? what gainful purpose would be served by making such complaint which has exposed him to humiliation amongst his colleagues and in the society? Mr. Surana himself has admitted that the Magistrate was a new one. He had joined only a few days back. Neither he knew him nor the Magistrate knew him. Moreover, it was just the beginning of his career. Why should he have made it known to everybody that he has been slapped in court. The incident in no way enhanced his prestige. Getting a slap from a lawyer means carrying a stigma throughout his career that he is the officer who had been slaped by a lawyer. 31. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in case reported in Courts of its own motion vs. Bansi Lal, 1979 Cr. L.J. Noc 165 , has held that : "As regards any incident or happening in a court of law, version of the presiding officer is entitled to pre- eminence and obvious acceptance. It is only in the rarest case that he should be discarded." No Infirmity in Complaint and Affidavit 32. A complaint made by Presiding Officer is not to be scrutinised in the same way as the pleadings in the civil case or an FIR in a criminal matter. His complaint is to be placed on a different pedestal specially when the contemner does not specifically deny the incident either in his affidavit or in the various affidavits filed by him. It is a truthful version of the incident. Moreover, we do not find any contradiction in the details of the incident mentioned in the complaint and the three affidavits in supports thereof.Proviso To Section 10 Of The Contempt Of Courts Act 33. The next submission raised by the learned counsel was that the High Court has no power to initiate contempt proceedings, inasmuch as the contempt alleged to be committed in respect of a subordinate court, is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The next submission raised by the learned counsel was that the High Court has no power to initiate contempt proceedings, inasmuch as the contempt alleged to be committed in respect of a subordinate court, is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. In order to appreciate this contention, a comparative study of the following provisions is to be made : "Section 2(c) of the Act : Criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) or any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:- (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; " Sec. 228 IPC: Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceedings : Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceedings, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Sec.353 IPC: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty - Whoever assaults or uses eminal force to any person being a public servant, in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intention to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 34. In the light of these definitions, was the conduct of Mr. Surana in abusing the Presiding Officer, slapping him and running away ,.... only within the purview of Sections 228 and 353 Indian Penal Code or had amounted to a criminal contempt, punishable under the Contempt of Court Act ? Was it only an injury to Mr. In the light of these definitions, was the conduct of Mr. Surana in abusing the Presiding Officer, slapping him and running away ,.... only within the purview of Sections 228 and 353 Indian Penal Code or had amounted to a criminal contempt, punishable under the Contempt of Court Act ? Was it only an injury to Mr. Agrawal or it was an abuse and slap on the face of the judicial system itself? A person can be punished for committing criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act in case he scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court, or interferes with due course of any judicial proceedings or interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of justice, in any way. Thus, criminal contempt has nothing to do with any injury caused to the person of the Presiding Officer, which is punishable under the Indian Penal Code. 35. Section 228 Indian Penal Code provides for punishment to a person who intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceedings. This has a reference to the person of the public servant. Section 353 Indian Penal Code provides a contingency where a person assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as a public servant, shall be punished under the said provision but none of these provisions contemplates the injury which is caused to the judicial system and to the majesty of law courts. Therefore, the present contempt petition falls within the definition of 'criminal contempt' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act and the proceedings initiated under Section 15 do not suffer from any jurisdictional defect. This court is competent to adjudicate and pass orders under the Act of 1971. Neither Section 228 nor Section 353 Indian Penal Code nor proviso to Section 11 of the Act creates a bar in the exercise of jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act. 36. Shri P.C. Jain has referred to a decision reported in D.C. Hajela Vs. This court is competent to adjudicate and pass orders under the Act of 1971. Neither Section 228 nor Section 353 Indian Penal Code nor proviso to Section 11 of the Act creates a bar in the exercise of jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act. 36. Shri P.C. Jain has referred to a decision reported in D.C. Hajela Vs. Kailash Nath Bhargava, Advacate, 1977 WLN (UC) 265 , In that case, the charge against the contemners was that they were guilty of criminal contempt of having uttered the words which tend to bring into contempt the authority of the court besides interfering with or obstructing the proceedings of the court. According to the Bench, their act fell within the purview of section 288 Indian Penal Code and so the application was rejected. That Bench has 'not considered the question whether any injury caused to the majesty of the judicial system or lowering the authority in the public eyes, was punishable under the Indian Penal Code. That case has not been correctly decided and should not be treated as laying down the correct law. In substance, that judgment has taken away the power of High Court to punish a person for committing criminal contempt. It is accordingly over-ruled.Mens rea 37. The concept of mens rea is wholly foreign to the law of contempt. Law on this point has been well settled in the case of R.V. Odham Press Ltd., 1956 (3) All England Report 494 , wherein it has been held that for committing contempt of court no mens rea is required.Performing Judicial Function 38. Shri P.C. Jain contended that, Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawal was not performing any judicial function when the act is said to have been committed. We find no substance in the submission. 39. Delhi High Court, in the case reported in Delhi High Court Vs. S.K. Garg, held that even if the presiding officer was not actually doing some judicial work and the condemner went upto the dais, shouted at him and threatened him, the law of contempt would be applicable, as it is the protector of the seat of justice and not the person of the judge sitting in the seat. There is need to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed. Equally it is important to maintain unimpaired confidence of the public in the course of law. There is need to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed. Equally it is important to maintain unimpaired confidence of the public in the course of law. If the courts of law are brought in ridicule then the public would cease to have confidence in courts and the very foundation of the judicial system, would be shaken. The guiding principle, therefore, is that no court can function properly unless its dignity is maintained. Contempt proceedings are only to protect the administration of justice. 40. In order to scrutinise whether Mr. Prem Surana has committed contempt or not, the court does not need by magnifying glass. Facts and circumstances speak for there selves. 41. On 16.3.94 the contemner filed an application alongwith his another affidavit sworn on 15.3.94. Affidavits of S/Shri Anil Sharma, Shashi Shekhar Gaur, Gulshan Kakkar, Nagendra Sharma, Moinuddin, Lalchand, Kailsha Narain Sharma, Satish Pandey, Vishnu Arora, Gorendra Gupta, Kishanlal Soni, Ramkumar Agrawal, Ashok Bansal, Satvendra Singh, Nathulal, Brij Mohan Agrawal, Mohd. Usman, R.K. Yadav and S.R. Surana, were also filed on the same day. He also filed the published news item dated 8.11.93, 13.11.93, 16.11.93, 19.11.93, copies of the compromise in case no. 1396/91 pending in the court of Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Shashi Shekhar Vs. Madan Mohan and Anant Joshi, bail order dated 8.12.93 passed in Bail Application No. 5463/93 , Prem Surana Vs. State, judgment dated 2.2.94 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur in case No. 872/93 , State Vs. Prem Surana and copy of the challan in State Vs. Ashok Kumar, Case No. 5/86 pending in the court of Session Judge, Merta City, against Ashok Kumar Agarwal. 42. He filed another application on 16.3.94 to call for the files of- (i) case No. 872/93 State Vs. Prem Surana, decided on 2.2.94 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, (ii) case No. 5/86 State Vs. Ashok Kumar , pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Merta City, (iii) case No. 553/92 State Vs. Shamshad pending in the court of Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City. 43. On 29.7.94 an application was filed by him to allow him to cross examine Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Atmaram Sharma, the Reader, and Rajesh Mehra the Class-IV employee, who have filed the affidavits in support of the complaint. 44. Shamshad pending in the court of Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City. 43. On 29.7.94 an application was filed by him to allow him to cross examine Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Atmaram Sharma, the Reader, and Rajesh Mehra the Class-IV employee, who have filed the affidavits in support of the complaint. 44. On 29.7.94 he made an application that the case may be heard by a Division Bench in view of Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Rule 59 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952. 45. On 10.8.94 an application was filed, bringing on record the affidavits of Sitaram, Rajendra, Nandram, Bihari and the site plan of the Amin, to show the placement of chairs in the court room where the contempt was said to be committed. Another application was filed on 16.8.94 to call Om Prakash Pareek, Steno, and also Suresh Chand, Public Prosecutor of the court of Shri Agrawal, for evidence.Contemner's Evidence 46. The incident had taken place on 6.11.93. According to the affidavit of Mr. Prem Surana, he appeared before the judicial officers on the same day after 3 p.m. when they were holding a meeting. He submitted his apology but nowhere it has been said that he had not committed any contempt and no incident took place as stated by the Magistrate. He remained in search of a probable story to place before the court in order to save himself from the clutches of law. Even in his first application dated 3.1.94, which was filed in this court, he said nothing in his defence. He took three months' time to invent this story. 47. For the first time he has come forward with a plea by filing his factual and legal submissions on 23.2.1994, that on 6.11.93 he had gone to attend the funeral of Damodarji at Jauhari Bazar at 11 A.M. He returned home at about 2.45 P.M. His Munshi Gulshan Kakkar came to his residence and informed him that his application for exemption of personal attendance, has been rejected, Thereafter, the petitioner reached the court at about 3.15 P.M. He was told by S/Shri Anil Sharma, Shashi Shekhar Gaur, Kailash Narain Sharma and Lalchand, about the same fact. Then he was further informed by his colleagues that after the rejection of his application, Rajesh (Peon of the Court), came and told them that if Atmaram, the Reader, was given Rs. 200/- as bribe, then the order sheet, in which the bail of Mr. Prem Surana was rejected will be changed and the bail of all the accused would be saved. On hearing this, his colleagues went to the Munsif Magistrate and made a complaint. He did not pay any heed. Then Mr. Anil Sharma said to the Magistrate that he should take realistic view in the matter as he himself (the Magistrate) was facing a criminal trial. He was further told that Mr. Prem Surana is having documentary evidence to substantiate the same. To us, it appears Mr. Surana was an expert in conducting a thorough research about the new judicial officer who joins at Jaipur so that the officer may remain under his thumb. On hearing his (Mr. Sharma) words, the Magistrate became red hot, left his chair & started calling him by name & said that he will teach Mr. Prem Surana a lesson. In the meantime the Reader Atmaram and Rajesh, Peon, Started quarrelling with the advocate and called them touts. When Mr. Anil Sharma and others told the Magistrate that they are going to make a complaint to the District Judge, then he observed that nothing can be done adverse, as he is the close relation of 'two big guns' of Rajasthan Judiciary. Thereafter all the junior advocates returned to their chambers. 48. It was further stated that at the instance of Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, the Presiding Officer, the staff of the Court started locking the courts and spoiled the atmosphere. When he (Mr. Prem Surana) was sitting in his chamber at about 5 P.M., one advocate (name not disclosed in any of the affidavits) came and told him that the District Judge, Jaipur is calling him. He went there. Mr. S.R. Surana and Mr. R.K. Yadav, Senior Advocates, who were sitting there had already submitted his apology on his behalf and his colleagues. He also submitted his apology. It was further said that the Magistrate also felt sorry and the matter was hushed- up. The complaint filed by the Magistrate was a false one, though he stated that the officer was a new one and he did not recognise him (Mr. Surana). He also submitted his apology. It was further said that the Magistrate also felt sorry and the matter was hushed- up. The complaint filed by the Magistrate was a false one, though he stated that the officer was a new one and he did not recognise him (Mr. Surana). 49. On behalf of Mr. Prem Surana, as many as 20 affidavits have been filed. They can be divided into four groups : (A) The Affidavits of Advocates S/Shri Prem Surana, Anil Sharma, Shashi Shekhar Gaur, Lal Chand, Kailash Narain Sharma, R.K. Yadav and S. R. Surana. (B) His Clerks S/Shri Gulshan Kakkar and Moinuddin alias Kesar Mian. (C) Friends S/Shri Gorendra Cupta, Ramkumar Agrawal, Ashok Bansal, Brij Mohan Agrawal. (D) Clients S/Shri Nagendra Sharma, Satish Pandey, Vishnu Arora, Krishan Lal Soni, Satyendra Singh and Nathu LaL. 50. In order of importance, next to the affidavit of Mr. Prem Surana, comes the affidavit of Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate. He has stated that at 8 O'clock in the morning he went to the residence of Mr. Prem Surana. He was informed by Mr. Prem Surana that he was going to attend a funeral and will not be coming to the court. He was instructed to move an application for exemption of his personal attendance. He told Mr. Surana that the Magistrate was a new one and in case he refused to grant exemption then what should be down. On this Mr. Surana said that the Magistrate himself is facing a criminal trial under the Essential Commodities Act and since he has the experience of attending the courts as an accused, he will certainly take a realistic view. Shri Shashi Shekhar Gaur, Advocate filed the application for exemption of personal attendance which was rejected at 11 A.M. It may be mentioned that the Magistrate was an accused in a case under the Essential Commodities Act, which was against a firm in which he was only a sleeping partner and this was of the year 1986, seven years before he became a Magistrate. 51. Mr. Anil Sharma then repeated the story of Rajesh Peon coming at about 1 P.M. in the chamber, asking for Rs. 200/- as bribe in the name of Reader for getting the order-sheet changed, advocate going to Mr. Agrawal, the Presiding Officer, and making a complaint of the peon. Other details as given by Mr. 51. Mr. Anil Sharma then repeated the story of Rajesh Peon coming at about 1 P.M. in the chamber, asking for Rs. 200/- as bribe in the name of Reader for getting the order-sheet changed, advocate going to Mr. Agrawal, the Presiding Officer, and making a complaint of the peon. Other details as given by Mr. Prem Surana in his affidavit were again repeated by him. To avoid repetition, no further narration of his affidavit is needed. The only extra feature which emerges from his affidavit is that he was present from the beginning to the end but nowhere it has come on record that he also submitted his apology. According to the affidavit of Mr. Prem Surana, it was only Mr. Anil Sharma who is said to have said something harsh to the court. 52. Similar averments have been repeated by Mr. Shashi Shekhar Gaur, Mr. Lalchand and Mr. Kailash Narain Sharma. They are the Advocates who were said to be present at the time when Mr. Anil Sharma made a complaint to the Presiding Officer against the demanding of Rs. 200/- as bribe by his peon. 53. The affidavit filed by Gulshan Kakkar, the clerk of Mr. Prem Surana, also repeats the demanding of bribe by Rajesh, the peon, and the event which took place thereafter in court as already stated by Mr. Anil Sharma. Only one more fact said that Mr. Prem Surana came to the court after 3P.M. Similar averments have been made by Moinuddin Alias Kesar Mian, who is another clerk of Mr. Prem Surana. 54. The affidavit of Nagendra Sharma, Shatish Pandey, Vishnu Arora, Kishanlal Soni, Satvendra Singh and Nathulal, who are the clients, said to be casually present in court on that day, have also adopted the averments made by Mr. Anil Sharma and three other lawyers in their affidavits. 55. Gorendra Gupta, Ramkumar Agrawal, Ashok Bansal and Brij Mohan Agrawal, have also supported the affidavit of Mr. Anil Sharma, Mr. Brij Mohan Agrawal, in addition to that has said that Mr. Prem Surana was present at the 'Ghat' along with him till last rites were performed. 56. Parrot lake statements have been made in all these affidavits. They do not inspire confidence. They are not relevant to the question whether the complaint filed by the Magistrate was incorrect. Brij Mohan Agrawal, in addition to that has said that Mr. Prem Surana was present at the 'Ghat' along with him till last rites were performed. 56. Parrot lake statements have been made in all these affidavits. They do not inspire confidence. They are not relevant to the question whether the complaint filed by the Magistrate was incorrect. They are narrating about some other drama which took place at 1 P.M. in which Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate, was playing the key role. None of these affidavits say that no occurrence took place as stated by the Magistrate in his complaint. All the affidavits constitute a 'pack of lies'. Various affidavits filed on behalf of Mr. Prem Surana have sung the same song which has been sung by him in his affidavit. The words are practically similar with no change in tunes, though there is some variation in their pitch. 57. The feature which emerges from these affidavits is that when they went to make a complaint against Rajesh the Peon, that he was demanding Rs. 200/- as bribe for getting the order sheet changed, the Magistrate did not pay any attention. Then Mr. Anil Sharma reminded the Magistrate that he should take a realistic view of the matter as he himself was an accused in a criminal case under the Essential Commodities Act. On this, Reader and the Peon of the court started quarrelling with the Advocates. Nothing further had happened. If the case so set up is believed, the Advocates cannot be said to be at fault. Then why this story of lawyers going to judicial officers and apologising? Did they beg for the apology for the reason that (i) the peon has demanded Rs. 200/- as bribe, or (ii) for their not paying the same, or (iii) for the Presiding Officer not paying any attention to their complaint ? There is no explanation for this. Moreover, Mr. Anil Sharma, who is said to have said something to the court, has never apologised though he was present at the scene till 5.0' clock. 58. The copy of compromise dated 11.1.94 in the case filed under Section 323 and 589 Indian Penal Code Shashi Shekhar Gaur v. Madan Mohan and Anant Joshi , bail order dated 8.12.93 granting bail to Mr. Prem Surana, the judgment of Chief judicial Magistrate dated 2.2.94 acquitting Mr. Prem. 58. The copy of compromise dated 11.1.94 in the case filed under Section 323 and 589 Indian Penal Code Shashi Shekhar Gaur v. Madan Mohan and Anant Joshi , bail order dated 8.12.93 granting bail to Mr. Prem Surana, the judgment of Chief judicial Magistrate dated 2.2.94 acquitting Mr. Prem. Surana in a criminal case No. 872/93 and the copy of challan in State vs. Ashok Kumar in case No. 5/86 , are wholly irrelevant for deciding the present criminal contempt application. 59. The application dated 29.7.94 for permission to allow Mr. Prem Surana to cross examine Mr. Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Atmaram Sharma and Rajesh, who have filed affidavits in support of the complaint and another application filed on the same day praying that the case should be heard by a Division Bench instead of this Full Bench, have already been rejected by us by separate orders. The application dated 10.10.94 for bringing on record the affidavits of Sitaram, Rajendra, Nand Bihari and the site plan prepared by Amin, to show the placement of the chair in the court room of Mr. Agrawal are not at all relevant for this case. It is accordingly rejected.Fresh Scandalisation 60. While defending his case, Mr. Prem Surana has stated in his affidavit that Mr. Ashok Kumar Agrawal was guilty of manipulating the order-sheets. it was done so, with the purpose of bringing the matter within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The complaint is based oh a suspicious order sheet. He himself was an accused in a criminal case. He obtained signatures of Atmaram, the Reader, and Rajesh, the peon of the court, on blank papers which were subsequently converted into affidavits. Indirectly he has involved the Oath Commissioner as well. The entire judicial machinery has been maligned. Does it not amount to further scandalisation of the court? We are not deciding this question and leaving it at this stage. The finding and conclusion of this case is in no way based on these facts, but the court will keep them in mind while considering the question of apology and awarding punishment. The purpose of highlighting this fact is only to show the conduct of the contemner and to what extent he has gone in further scandalising the court. It shows that he had no contribution for what has already been done on 6.11.93 at 11 A.M. 61. The purpose of highlighting this fact is only to show the conduct of the contemner and to what extent he has gone in further scandalising the court. It shows that he had no contribution for what has already been done on 6.11.93 at 11 A.M. 61. The word 'scandalise' as explained in the Webster's New Third International Dictionary means, to speak falsely or maliciously, to defame, to malign, to bring into reproach, dishonour, to offend the feelings, conscience, or propriety or by an action considered immoral, criminal or unseemly. 62. Making such allegations against the court would shake the confidence of litigants. It lowers the image of the judicial system. The impartiality of the court becomes doubtful. The purpose of saying so was to malign the court. 63. The question of scandalisation was considered by this Court in recent judgment reported in Rajasthan High Court Vs. Radha Mohan Lal, 1993 (1) RLR 22=1993 (2) WLC (Raj) 27 , where an application was filed before the Bench praying the case should be transferred to some other court, the applicant had lost faith in that Bench for obvious reasons. The court took the view that the contents of the application seek to impeach the impartiality of the judges. It has the affect of giving a feeling of embarrassment to him as a Judge in the discharge of his duties as a court on the one hand and on the other hand, such allegations lower the confidence of genuine and prospective litigants in court and in the matter of administration of justice. It tends to scandalise the court and amounts to interference with the administration of justice. Accordingly, the non-petitioners, who were advocates of this court, were held guilty of contempt and were sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. 64. The Supreme Court, while considering the case of practising lawyers against whom criminal contempt proceedings were initiated, observed in the case of M.B. Singh v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana reported in, 1991 (3) JT 318 , that an advocate having failed to persuade the court for grant of interim injunction, started making derogatory remarks with a hope of getting a favourable order. This was done with the intent to tarnish his image as a judicial officer. This was done with the intent to tarnish his image as a judicial officer. Hon'ble Ahmadi, J. observed that : '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 time blatant condemnatory attacks like the present one are often designedly employed with a view to taming of judge into submission to secure a desired order. Such cases arise large issues touching the independence of not only the concerned judge but the entire institution. The foundation of our 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 Officer with impunity. It is high time that we realise 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." As rightly pointed out that there is great threat to the independence of judiciary not only from the Executive and Legislature, but from those who are the integral part of the judiciary. The independent judiciary is simmering these days because of all round attack on it. The poor judicial officer has no tongue. He is bound by the judicial discipline imposed upon his ownself. He is always at the receiving end. Who is going to hear him. If this court will not extent its hand of lawful protection to subordinate courts, it may amount to mockery of a fearless judiciary. Justice without fear and favour will be left with only ornamental beauty. The tendency of scandalising the court and maligning the reputation of the judicial officers by few disgruntled elements who fail to get favourable order, is on increase. Sometimes, these methods bring dividends. It should be condemned and stopped immediately.Object of the Law of contempt 65. The object of the law of contempt is to punish a person who commits contempt of court so that the image of the judicial system any remain untarnished. The purpose of the contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity and authority of law courts. It should be condemned and stopped immediately.Object of the Law of contempt 65. The object of the law of contempt is to punish a person who commits contempt of court so that the image of the judicial system any remain untarnished. The purpose of the contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity and authority of law courts. Administration of justice cannot be effective unless respect for it is fostered and maintained. Interference with it, shakes the very foundation of the administration of justice and the confidence of the people in court. Of course, the court is always conscious of its position in law that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised with great care and caution.Position of Advocates 66. Members of the legal profession belong to intellectual class. They are officers of the court. It is their duty to see that the majesty of the court is maintained. Only few disgruntled members have adopted the style of getting an order from the court by striking terror, scandalising it or even assaulting. Does an advocate belong to any privileged class ? Should he be treated differently from the other citizens of the country? Does he possess a licence to abuse and slap a Judge. We leave all these questions to them, only to be answered from their hearts. If at any point of time an advocate has really some grievance against he presiding Officer, there are proper ways and means to ventilate the same. But he has no business to beat the Judge.Painful duty 67. Of all the duties which the court is required to perform, the most painful one is to proceed against an Advocate, who is equally an important part of our judicial system. But we are helpless, if an organ of the body has become diseased, it has to be cured. If it is left uncared, it may become cancerous which may result in the end/death of the independent judiciary. In the instant case, if we do not punish Mr. Prem Surana, what message we would be conveying to the judicial world? It is a very serious question which is staring at us. It is our duty to see that one who sligs mud on the face of the court's majesty, has to be adequlately punished. In the instant case, if we do not punish Mr. Prem Surana, what message we would be conveying to the judicial world? It is a very serious question which is staring at us. It is our duty to see that one who sligs mud on the face of the court's majesty, has to be adequlately punished. In such matter, court always takes a very scrupulous care in arriving at any conclusion.Now Physical Assault on Even High Court Judges 68. In a recent case of criminal contempt petition No. 2058/94 decided by a division bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), five advocates - Dr. L.P. Mishra, S/Shri A. K. Bajpai, Anand Mohan Srivastava, Y.C. Pandey and Shamin Ahmed, were convicted for committing contempt. The facts of the case were as follows : On 15.7.94., while the Bench was doing the judicial work, these advocates entered the court room along with some others raising slogans and asking the court to rise and stop functioning. The bench did not accede to their dictates. Then, these advocates came to dias and tried to manhandle Justice A. P. Singh and used abusive language against Justice B. M. Lal in the following words : "TUM SHALE UTH JAAO NAHIEN TO JAAN SE MAAR DAALENGE. TUMNE CHIEF JUSTICE SE KAHA HAI KI LUCKNOW KE JUDGES 5,000/- RUPYA LEKAR STAY GRANT KARTE HAIN AND STAY EXTEND KARTE HAIN. AAJ 2 BAJE TAK AGAR TUM APNA BORIYA BISTAR LEKAR YAHAN SE NAHIEN BHAG JAATE HO TO TUMHE JAAN SE MAAR DAALENGE." The judges, feeling that the situation was going out of control retired to chamber. While both judges were sitting in the chamber, these five advocates again came and repeated their performance. The Bench held them ex-facie guilty of contempt and passed an order of conviction.Lok Adalat 69. Mr. P. C. Jain raised a very half-hearted argument stating that on 6.11.1993 the matter has been finally disposed of by the District Judge, by accepting the apology of the lawyers. The District Judge, was exercising the power as Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The submission is misconceived.Under Section 9 of the Act, the State Government constitutes legal services authority for every district in the State. The District Judge, was exercising the power as Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The submission is misconceived.Under Section 9 of the Act, the State Government constitutes legal services authority for every district in the State. It consists of (a) the District Judge who is the Chairman; (b) such other members possessing such qualifications and experience as may be prescribed and nominated by the government.The District Judge alone did not constitute the Lok Adalat. He was only the Chairman. Nowhere it has come on record that other members of the District Authority were also present when the apology of the lawyers was accepted and it was done in the proceedings under the Legal Services Authority Act.After hearing Mr. Jain, we are of the opinion that it was wholly a frivolous argument and that is why he did not further elaborate the point.Who Needs Protection 70. Should the Judges be hyper-sensitive while discharging judicial functions ? Is it the Judge or the seat of justice which needs protection? Certainly it is the seat of Justice, it is the right and interest of public in the administration of justice, it is the image of the judicial system which needs protection. Nobody, howsoever high he may be, can be permitted to tarnish or destory the image of the temple of justice. Its majesty has to be maintained. Nobody is above law.Apology 71. Under the explanation to Section 12 of the Act, there can be both justification and apology. But apology tendered must be bona fide and may appear to have come from the heart itself. 72. In his affidavits, Mr. Prem Surana has made serious insinuation against the Presiding Officer in saying that he has changed the order sheet of the court's record, obtained signatures of his Reader and Peon on blank papers, converted them into affidavits, dragged two members of the higher judiciary in the dirty game. It has aggravated the position . By his statement the litigant would loose faith in court. This action of Mr. Prem Surana is highly deplorable and we condemn it. Looking to the conduct, if the apology is accepted and he is allowed to go un-punished, the majesty of the court would weep. The alleged unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by Mr. By his statement the litigant would loose faith in court. This action of Mr. Prem Surana is highly deplorable and we condemn it. Looking to the conduct, if the apology is accepted and he is allowed to go un-punished, the majesty of the court would weep. The alleged unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by Mr. Prem Surana on 6.9.93 before the judicial officers and then on 3.1.94 and 23.2.94 in this Court, are not apologies in the real sense. They are empty words. They lack genuine contrition. Mr. Prem Surana is not really sorry. Even after submitting the so-called apology, his conduct in defending the case was highly contemptuous. He has shifted the entire responsibility on his junior colleague Mr. Anil Sharma. We would have taken action against Mr. Anil Sharma, but we cannot do so without issuing notice to him. Justice would be done by taking action only against Mr. Preen Surana. 73. We are of the view that if any leniency is shown in the present case by accepting the so-called apology we will be doing injustice to the seat of Justice. 74. If any soft attitude is shown in the present case, it would definitely encourage indiscipline and repetition of such occurrence. It will be interference with the administration of justice. Apology cannot be accepted as a matter of right. The court has to be satisfied on the facts and circumstances of each case that the apology is bona fide. Sometimes the gravity of contempt is also to be taken into consideration for considering the acceptance of apology. 75. The Supreme Court has observed that an apology is an act of contrition and unless it is offered in good grace, it should not be accepted. Apology short of penitence is liable to be rejected. Mulkraj Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1197 . 76. In the case reported in J.D. Jaiswal v. State of U.P., also the Supreme Court has considered the question of accepting apology. In that case the contemner was an advocate who called the Presiding Officer as corrupt. The court, while deciding the matter, refused to accept the apology on the ground that it would amount to issuing a licence to scandalise the court. One who commits such act should not be allowed to go unpunished. The advocate was a senior counsel. In that case the contemner was an advocate who called the Presiding Officer as corrupt. The court, while deciding the matter, refused to accept the apology on the ground that it would amount to issuing a licence to scandalise the court. One who commits such act should not be allowed to go unpunished. The advocate was a senior counsel. The court took a serious view by saying "that the court should not subscribe to the 'slap, say sorry and forget'. Saying "sorry" does not make the slapper poorer.Nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon said hyporitical word being uttered through the very lips which not long ago slandered a judicial officer without the slightest compunction in court." 77. In the case report in Advocate General, State of Bihar V. M/s Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries, AIR 1980 SC 946 , it was held that where the conduct is reprehensible, the apology should not be accepted. 78. In the case of Mohd. Usman v. Mohd. Bagar, 1980 Cr. L.J. 845 , it was held by the Supreme Court that the court was not powerless in rejecting the apology even if it is tendered at the earliest moment. Accepting of the apology depends upon the gravity of the contempt. 79. The Gujarat High Court in the case reported in State Vs. Lakhiram Shivram, held that where the majesty of the court has been humiliated and insulted by imputing motives against the Presiding Officer, even unconditional apology should not be accepted. Accepting the same amounts to issuing a licence to scandalise the court. 80. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case reported in Manik Chand v. Virendra Kumar, 1979 Cr.L.J. 412 , has held that where the prestige and dignity of the court is affected, the apology should not be accepted. In Balram Singh V. Bhikam Chand, AIR 1985 SC 1726 , the Supreme Court has again warned by saying that it would be a travesty of justice if its contempt goes unpunished. 81. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court Major B.M. Bhattacharji (Retd.) v. Russel Corporation, 1992 (2) JT 109 , it has been said that while tendering an unconditional apology, the contemner has defended his action in all seriousness. The court was not bound to accept the same looking to his conduct. 82. 81. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court Major B.M. Bhattacharji (Retd.) v. Russel Corporation, 1992 (2) JT 109 , it has been said that while tendering an unconditional apology, the contemner has defended his action in all seriousness. The court was not bound to accept the same looking to his conduct. 82. For the reasons given above, we are of the view that Mr. Prem Surana has committed gross criminal contempt of court. The so- called apologies submitted by him is (are) hereby rejected.Punishment 83. We have already held that the apology was not real, sincere or genuine; it was mercy an empty formality. Mr. Prem Surana has only tried to play with the word 'apology' in court like a football in the play ground. It shocks the conscience of court. 84. In the case reported in Jennison v. Baker, 1972 All England Reports 997 at P. 1006 , it was observed by the court "that law should not be seen by limply, while those who defy it, go free and those seek its protection, lose hode on court." 85. Lord Morris in Attorney General v. Times Newspaper, 1974 A.C. 273 at page 302 , opined in the following words: "In an ordered community courts are established for the pacific settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order. In general interest of the community, it is imperative that the authority of the courts should not be imperilled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference is suppressed, it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned with their own dignity, it is because the very structure of ordered life is a risk if the courts of the land are to be flouted and their authority wanes and is supplanted." 86. In the case Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1992 SC 902 , the court observed: 'To punish an advocate for contempt of court, no doubt, must be regarded as extreme measure, but to preserve the proceedings of the courts from being deflected or interfered with, and to keep the streams of justice pure, serene and undefiled it becomes the duty of the court, though painful, to punish the contemner in order to preserve its dignity. No one can claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt, if his act or conduct in relation to court or court proceedings interferes with or is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice." 87. The prime responsibility of this court is to keep the fountain of justice pure. No body should be allowed to tarnish the image and the majesty of the court, howsoever high he may be or whosoever he may be of course aberrations by lawyers in court are generally ignored but when it goes to lowering the image of the court, serious action is to be taken. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and particularly to the outrageous conduct of Mr. Prem Surana by abusing and slapping the Magistrate in court, showing any magnanimity, would be not only injurious to the majesty of the authority but may prove to be fatal. If justice has an audible voice, then one can hear it crying that Mr. Prem Surana, Advocate, has committed contempt of the court. 88. We hold Mr. Prem Surana guilty of committing gross criminal contempt of the court of Mr. Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur. We are of the view that he should be given exemplary punishment. We sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and impose a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand). In case of default in payment of fine he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He is to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. 89. In view of this judgment, we do not propose to pass any order in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 5295/93 Rajasthan Higher Judicial Officers' Association, Jaipur v. Prem Surana, Advocate .Contemner Punished. *******