ORDER Dharmadhikari, J. –1. An act of a lawyer attacking the reputation and character of a Judge is as grave an offence worthy of condemnation as of a priest in a temple defacing and defiling the deity installed in it, because by such act he not only destroys the very institution from which he derives status and sustenance but does a greater general damage by shaking faith of the devotees and hurting the feelings and sentiments of the worshippers who through his mediation and assistance seek spiritual gain and contentment. 2. These introductory comments are called for on the facts which have been brought to the notice of this Court by a reference under section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') made by the Presiding Judge of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate of Balodabazar district Raipur against the contemner who is a practising lawyer there. 3. It is not in dispute that the Presiding Judge B.R. Nikunj, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar by Judgment dt. 8.1.1997 in Criminal Case 497/87 convicted the father of the contemner for offence under section 336,427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to one year three months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1250/-. After the above Judgment of conviction and sentence the contemner made a complaint in writing supported by his affidavit to the Chief Justice of this High Court and sent its copies to the President of India, Chief Justice of India, Registrar of the High Court, President of State Bar Council and District & Sessions Judge, Raipur. In the written complaint with affidavit sworn on 22.7.1997 he made the following allegations against the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Shri B.R. Nikunj : (1) The criminal case in which the Presiding Judge convicted the father of the contemner was pending since last 10 years and on 26.7.1996, he disclosed to the contemner that such old criminal cases have been kept by him in his trunk for dropping them on the directions of the Supreme Court of India. The Judge, thereafter on 8.1.1997, without hearing the arguments and although no offence was proved against his father, convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine as mentioned above. The Judge, thereafter on 8.1.1997, without hearing the arguments and although no offence was proved against his father, convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine as mentioned above. (2) A senior lawyer Shri T.N. Mishra came to the house of the contemner and in the presence of the brother of the former gave information to the contemner that the Judge had confided to the said senior Advocate that he had passed sentence against the father of the contemner because some persons had poisioned his ears. Similar information was given to him by another advocate Kamal Dixit. After the imposition of punishment, his father suffered heart attack and is under medical treatment. It was alleged that the Judge has passed the Judgment under extraneous influence. (3) The Judge has developed illicit relations with several businessmen engaged in nefarious trades and through them he arranges items such as car and other luxuries. It is said that this conduct is unbecoming of a Judge and such persons with whom he has association influence his judgment. (4) The Judge by putting undue influence called the contemer to his chamber and asked him number of times to make arrangement for a V.C.R. for his personal use. (5) The Judge allowed a Civil Case Vinod Tiwari v. Satish Soni to be filed before him without affixure of Court fees of Rs. 4,000/- payable on it. He not only registered the suit but without insisting on payment of Court fees decided the suit and thereby cleverly caused loss of Rs. 4,000/- to the State. (6) The Judge is also seen freely participating in public functions, the marriages and marriage procession. This habit definitely influences his decisions in cases before him. (7) That the Judge is given to use of insulting language towards parties, litigants and lawyers. He represented to Shri Ekka S.D.O. (Police) that for his transfer political leaders are demanding a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from him (the S.D.O.). (8) In criminal case State v. Umashankar under section 457 & 380 IPC the charge against the accused was theft of two V.C. Rs. costing Rs. 40,000/-. In that case the Judge in collusion with the accused granted him bail and as a result the complainant's one V.C.R. of the value 16,000/- could not be recovered. (8) In criminal case State v. Umashankar under section 457 & 380 IPC the charge against the accused was theft of two V.C. Rs. costing Rs. 40,000/-. In that case the Judge in collusion with the accused granted him bail and as a result the complainant's one V.C.R. of the value 16,000/- could not be recovered. (9) Lastly, a general comment has been made in the complaint that because of misconduct and misuse of his position and office by the Judge, the staff working under him are also emboldened in making money openly from advocates and litigants under protection of the Judge. The contemner desired the Chief Justice to make necessary enquiry into the conduct of the Judge and punish him for his mis-deeds. 4. It is also not disputed that on the basis of the complaint made by the contemner to the Chief Justice, an enquiry through vigilance cell of the High Court was made through the District Judge, Raipur. The District Judge, Raipur, after holding an enquiry submitted a report that the complaint is false and vindictive. Thereafter, the District Judge on the report of the concerned Judge issued a show cause to the contemner calling upon him to substantiate his allegations against the Judge or explain why a reference for initiating contempt proceedings be not made to the High Court under section 10 of the Act. 5. It is not in dispute that to the show cause notice issued by the District Judge the contemner submitted a reply stating that the allegations and charges made by him against the concerned Judge were true and his complaint does not constitute any act of contempt. It is also not in dispute that after holding a vigilance enquiry, the Chief Justice filed the case indicating that he did not find the complaint worthy of taking any disciplinary action against the Judge. On the basis of the report of the District Judge, the Registrar placed the matter before this Court and proceedings of contempt were thereafter intiated. The contemner after being noticed has submitted a reply on 9.3.1998 and also submitted an additional reply on 22.6. 1998, in which certain legal objections to the maintainability of these contempt proceedings have been raised. On the basis of the report of the District Judge, the Registrar placed the matter before this Court and proceedings of contempt were thereafter intiated. The contemner after being noticed has submitted a reply on 9.3.1998 and also submitted an additional reply on 22.6. 1998, in which certain legal objections to the maintainability of these contempt proceedings have been raised. No. attempt has been made to substantiate or justify the allegations made by the contemner in the complaint sent by him alongwith his affidavit to the Chief Justice and to other constitutional dignitaries and authorities. The contemner appeared in person alongwith his counsel but has neither in writing nor orally expressed any regrets or tendered any apology. 6. The learned senior counsel Shri K.P. Munshi appearing for the contemner questions the maintainability of these contempt proceedings. It is argued by him that the complaint to the High Court against the conduct of the Judicial Officer of Subordinate Court is protected under section 6 of the Act from the charge of contempt and so long as the High Court, after hearing the contemner in a open enquiry on its administrative side, has not recorded a finding that the statements made in the complaint were not made in good faith, the contempt proceedings at the instance of ajudicial officer of a subordinate Court cannot be entertained and no punishment can be imposed. 7. It is pointed out that on the enquiry held by the vigilance cell of the High Court, the Chief Justice merely 'filed' the complaint which does not indicate that the complaint was found to be 'not in good faith' so as to deny him the privilege contained in section 6 of the Act. 8. It is also argued on behalf of the contemner that as two senior counsel of Balodabazar had given him some information about the conduct of the Judge and as there was no reason to disbelieve them, it cannot be said that the complaint made was not in good faith. 9. On these contempt proceedings, we also heard Shri Dilip Naik, G.A. who appreared as Amicus curaie. According to Shri Naik, as the contemner had not shown any justification in making such serious allegations against the conduct and integrity of the Judicial Officer, the action is not protected by the provisions of section 6 of the Act. 10. 9. On these contempt proceedings, we also heard Shri Dilip Naik, G.A. who appreared as Amicus curaie. According to Shri Naik, as the contemner had not shown any justification in making such serious allegations against the conduct and integrity of the Judicial Officer, the action is not protected by the provisions of section 6 of the Act. 10. We have given our consideration to the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the contemner to the maintainability of these contempt proceedings. The High Court being a constitutional Court is competent to initiate contempt proceedings on a reference made to it or suo motu. The existence of such power in the High Court is clear from the provision of Section 22 of the Act which provides that 'the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law relating to contempt of Courts. Section 10 of the Act also empowers the High Court 'to exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of Courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of con tempts of itself'. The power of the High Court as contained in Section 10 read with Section 22 of the Act and as a constitutional Court of record under Article 2 IS of the Constitution of India is in no manner restricted or curtailed for taking action for contempt of subordinate Court. It can exercise such power suo motu or on a reference made by the subordinate Court. 11. The other argument advanced on behalf of the contemner is that these contempt proceedings are not competent in the absence of an enquiry by the High Court on its administrative side in which due participation to the contemner is allowed to enable him to show that he did not act in bad faith. 12. The action on the administrative side by the High Court, with the assistance of its vigilance department, is for a purpose of taking a decision whether any disciplinary action is called for against the judicial officer whose conduct has been subject of the compalint. 12. The action on the administrative side by the High Court, with the assistance of its vigilance department, is for a purpose of taking a decision whether any disciplinary action is called for against the judicial officer whose conduct has been subject of the compalint. The question whether the complainant acted in 'good faith' or not within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act is not a matter which could have been decided by the Chief Justice or the High Court on the administrative side. The proceedings for contempt have been initiated against the contemner only after the High Court on its administrative side did not find any substance in the complaint as to necessitate taking of any disciplinary action against the judicial officer. When such contempt action has been initiated by the High Court on its judicial side, it is here in this Court that the contemner has to substantiate his complaint and to bring on record facts and evidence to show that he had acted bonafide in making the complaint. Unfortunately, for him the contemner has not made any attempt before us to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint and has not sought any opportunity for a detailed enquiry into his allegations made in the complaint. He has also not expressed any regrets or tendered apology for making such a complaint and sending it not only to the High Court and the Chief Justice but to other dignitaries mentioned above. If the contemner's stand is that his action in making complaint was in good faith, he has to place material in his defence to take benefit of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act in these proceedings before this Court. 13. Section 6 of the Act serves a dual purpose. It intends to protect the dignity and majesty of the Court and at the same time does not intend to provide a clock for judicial authorities to cover up their inefficiency or to stifle criticism made in good gaith against such officers for their lapses or misconduct. The provisions of Section 6 of the Act read as under :- "6. Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate Courts when not contempt. The provisions of Section 6 of the Act read as under :- "6. Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate Courts when not contempt. -- A person shall not be guilty of contempt of Court in respect of any statement made by him in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any Court to— (a) any other subordinate Court, or (b) the High Court, to which it is subordinate." 14. What is to be noted from the provisions quoted above is that for taking a defence under the said provision, the alleged contemner has not only to show from his conduct and evidence that he acted in 'good faith' concerning any presiding officer of the subordinate Court but also that about his conduct, statement or complaint, if any, was made to any other subordinate Court to which the presiding officer is subordinate, or to the High Court. 15. The expression 'good faith' as used in the Act has not been defined. Therefore, recourse can be taken to the definition contained in clause 22 of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act of 1897. According to the definition in that Act "a thing shall be deemed to be done in good faith," where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not." 16. What is important, therefore, is to find out as to whether the act, complained of was done honestly, even if it would have been done negligently or carelessly. Want of due care and attention in a given case may be an indication of lack of honesty. It is only in that limited sense that Section 52 of the I.P.C. containing definition of 'good faith' in negative terms can be taken aid of for judging the impugned action of the contemner. Section 52 of the I.P.C. says nothing is said to be done or believed in 'good faith' which is done or believed without due care and attention." The provisions of Section 6 of the Act is aimed at ad vancing general public interest of administration of justice. In order to have a proper control and check over the administration of justice, it is but expedient that a citizen is not dissuaded by the threat to prosecution for contempt from making a bonafide complaint to the High Court against the presiding officer of a subordinate Court. In order to have a proper control and check over the administration of justice, it is but expedient that a citizen is not dissuaded by the threat to prosecution for contempt from making a bonafide complaint to the High Court against the presiding officer of a subordinate Court. Presumably with this purpose by section 6 immunity is provided to a citizen making a complaint to the higher Court or the High Court against the presiding officer of the Subordinate Court provided the complaint is made in good faith. See in this respect case of Ram Piara Comrade, 1973 Cr. Law Journal 1106 (Punjab & Haryana High Court). 17. As held in the case of Gurjarilal, Advocate of Amhah, (1968 JLJ 678 = 1968 MPLJ 725) , 'the object for contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to Judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals. It is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the Court is lowered and the sense of confidence which people have in the administration of justice by it is weakened." 18. In the instant case in this Court no attempt has been made by the contemner to substantiate the allegations made against the presiding Judge of Subordinate Court at Balodabazar. What has been said on his behalf is that two of the senior members of the Bar informed him that the Judge has convicted and punished the father of the contemner as accused in a criminal case as somebody had 'poisioned his (of the Judge) ears'. So far as the other allegations in the complaint about integrity and honesty of the Judge is concerned they are not substantiated at all and in the complaint also there are no details. The details of such misconducts with date, time and the person involved have not been mentioned anywhere in the two written replies filed in this Court. The contemner, therefore, cannot be said to have acted honestly. As a lawyer, he was not expected to readily accept some information given to him by the senior members of the Bar. He has himself made no reasonable attempt to ascertain the truth before alleging against the Judge that the Judge convicted his father on extraneous influence and considerations. 19. The contemner, therefore, cannot be said to have acted honestly. As a lawyer, he was not expected to readily accept some information given to him by the senior members of the Bar. He has himself made no reasonable attempt to ascertain the truth before alleging against the Judge that the Judge convicted his father on extraneous influence and considerations. 19. The learned presiding Judge and the District Judge in the reference made to this Court has stated that only because the contemner's father was convicted and sentenced in a criminal case, the contemner actuated by revengeful attitude made a false complaint against the presiding Judge containing very general and wild allegations reflecting on his conduct and integrity. Such complaint on ill based information is gross contempt because it shakes the confidence of the public in Courts particularly in a small place like Balodabazar where there are only few Judges functioning in the Court. Similar attempt of maligning and scandalizing a Judge of a Court in a rural area by issuing pamphlets against him came up for severe criticism by the Supreme Court in the case of Rama Dayal Murkarha v. State of M.P. ( AIR 1978 SC 921 ), in which similar defence and protection under section 6 was not accepted and the lawyer was held guilty of contempt and punished although with a token fine. 20. The circumstances brought on record go to show that because the contemner's father was convicted and punished with sentence of imprisonment and fine by the Presiding Judge, the contemner made a complaint against his honesty and integrity. He has failed to substantiate it either on the administrative side or judicial side of the High Court. 21. On the facts and circumstances discussed above, it cannot be held that the action of the contemner was in good faith. He made no attempt to ascertain the correctness or truth of the information alleged to have been given to him by the two senior members of the bar. The contemner has not filed any statement or affidavit of the two senior members of the bar on whose information he made the complaint. On the other allegations, nothing has been produced before us to indicate that there were any reasonable grounds for the contemner to make a complaint against the Judge. The contemner has not filed any statement or affidavit of the two senior members of the bar on whose information he made the complaint. On the other allegations, nothing has been produced before us to indicate that there were any reasonable grounds for the contemner to make a complaint against the Judge. The complaint has not only been made to the District Judge and the High Court which alone would have protected his action under section 6 of the Act but copies of such complaint were sent to Chief Justice of India, Registrar of the High Court and to the President of the Bar Council. There was thus an attempt on the part of the contemner to make a complaint against the Judge. The complaint has not only been made to the District Judge and the High Court which alone would have protected his action under section 6 of the Act but copies of such complaint were sent to Chief Justice of India, Registrar of the High Court and to the President of the Bar Council. There was thus an attempt on the part of the contemner to malign and harm the Judge and as a result it has not only caused embarrasment and harrasment to the Judge but has done a greater public damage by shaking confidence of the people in administration of justice. He has not expressed regrets nor apologised. In the circumstances, we hold him guilty of contempt. Guided by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rama Dayal Markarha (supra) we are also of the opinion that for a lawyer imposition of a token fine of Rs. 1 (one) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a day should meet the ends of justice and deter him from committing such acts of contempt in future. It is ordered accordingly. In the circumstances, the contemner shall pay Rs. 500/- (five hundred) as costs to be deposited in the High Court to defray the office expenses.