( 1 ) THE District Judge Ghaziabad has made a reference to the High Court on the basis of the report submitted by A. K. Singh X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad for drawing proceedings against one Rajendra Singh Chaudhary, Advocate who on 26-11-1997 at about 2 p. m. under intoxication had entered and remained in the Court of X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad and was lying on a bench in the Court room. The report mentions that the aforesaid Rajendra Singh Chaudhary Advocate was drunk. He was vomitting in the Court. He was asked to leave the Court which he did not do. In the Court room a number of litigants and advocates were present. The aforesaid Rajendra Singh Chaudhary, Advocate was, the report mentions, rambling under intoxication. The record also mentions that he was spitting all over in Court. ( 2 ) THE X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate brought this matter to the notice of his colleagues in the neighbouring Court with the result that the I Additional District Judge and the II Additional District Judge, on the direction of the District Judge made a spot inspection and submitted their reports to the District Judge Ghaziabad. The report of the District Judge, Ghaziabad, states that in the past also Judicial Officers complained about the similar misconduct of the aforesaid, Rajendra Singh Chaudhary Advocate. On the report of the District Judge, the High Court directed that summons be issued. The proceedings record that initially Rajendra Singh Chaudhary Advocate evaded receiving the summons of the Court so much so that the District Judge had to have the summons from the High Court pasted outside his chamber No. 57. The summons had not been readily accepted by the aforesaid, Rajendra Singh Chaudhary Advocate. The High Court had to issue fresh summons. These proceedings are noticed in the order-sheet dated 9/08/1998, 31 August 1998 and 6/04/1999. Ultimately the High Court had to issue bailable warrants to Rajendra Singh Chaudhary against a sum of Rs. 500. These warrants fixed 3/05/1999 as the date of appearance. This is recorded in the proceedings of 6/04/1999 an order of the Division Bench of the Honble O. P. Jain and Honble S. K. Agarwal JJ. The proceedings of 3/05/1999 before the Division Bench of the Honble R. R. K. Trivedi and Honble Iqram-ul-Bari JJ. 500. These warrants fixed 3/05/1999 as the date of appearance. This is recorded in the proceedings of 6/04/1999 an order of the Division Bench of the Honble O. P. Jain and Honble S. K. Agarwal JJ. The proceedings of 3/05/1999 before the Division Bench of the Honble R. R. K. Trivedi and Honble Iqram-ul-Bari JJ. record that appearance on behalf of aforesaid Rajendra Singh Chaudhary was put by Sri V. K. Jaiswal, Advocate. The contemner did not appear despite a bailable warrant. His counsel reported to the Court that "rajendra Singh Chaudhary met him day before yesterday i. e. on 1/05/1999 at Ghaziabad and he prayed for his help as he was suffering from fever. " ( 3 ) THE proceeding record that as notice has been issued to Rajendra Singh Chaudhary to appear in person his presence through counsel cannot be accepted. The matter was listed on 11/05/1999. On 1 1/05/1999 Rajendra Singh Chaudhary Advocate, the contemner appeared personally. On that day he sought one months time to file a counter affidavit. It was also contended on his behalf that the contemner has not received any papers. On this the Court directed that the papers be supplied to the aforesaid Rajendra Singh Chaudhary, Advocate, the contemner. Though, the contemner was already appearing through counsel and it is on record that the contemner was evading the summons and the record, both. ( 4 ) THIS matter came up before this Court on 21-7-1999; rather than summarise the order, the order itself is being reproduced. "21-7-99honble Ravi S. Dhavan, J. Honble B. Dikshit, J. The record reveals that it took a lot of exercise for the High Court to effect service upon the contemner Rajendra Singh Chaudhary, Advocate. This aspect of the exercise to effect service upon the contemner aforesaid is a matter of record and thus, this part of the record need not be repeated in this order. Suffice to say that the contemner Rajendra Singh Chaudhary, Advocate did appear on 11/05/1999 and filed an application with three prayers :- (a) that the office be directed to supply necessary papers to the contemner. (b) that one month time be granted for filing counter-affidavit, and (c) that personal presence of the applicant be exempted. On this the Court on 11/05/1999 ordered that orders on the application will be passed on 21/07/1999. Today is 21/07/1999. (b) that one month time be granted for filing counter-affidavit, and (c) that personal presence of the applicant be exempted. On this the Court on 11/05/1999 ordered that orders on the application will be passed on 21/07/1999. Today is 21/07/1999. The personal presence of the contemner aforesaid has not been exempted and the contemner is otherwise not present. ( 5 ) THE stage thus, has arrived that charge must be framed against the contemner. ( 6 ) THE contemner had been evading service and the papers were otherwise supplied to him in fact through his counsel on 17/05/1999, after an order on 11/05/1999. The office report is also to the effect that when summons were attempted to be served on the contemner at the place where he normally practises as a lawyer he declined to receive the same and in such circumstances the District Judge had the summons pasted outside his chamber No. 57. ( 7 ) REGARD being had to the circumstances relating to the contemner, as to why the proceedings had been drawn up on report of the District Judge so that he could be tried by proceeding on the alleged contempt by the Court, it would be best to reproduce the report exactly as it was submitted to the District Judge. The report is of X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mr. A. K. Singh. The report is dated 26-11-1997, which reads as under :- ( 8 ) THE Court in the circumstances frames the charges as below :- That you Rajendra Singh Chaudhary, Advocate on 26-11-1997 at about 2. 00 p. m. was found drunk in the Court of X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and while in this drunken stage, was vomitting and spitting inside the Court and despite being asked to leave the Court did not do so. In the circumstances you have : (a) lowered the authority of the Court; (b) interfered with the course of judicial proceedings on that day; and (c) obstructed the administration of justice as your conduct was unbecoming that of an Advocate. ( 9 ) AS the contemner is represented by counsel and one of them Mr. In the circumstances you have : (a) lowered the authority of the Court; (b) interfered with the course of judicial proceedings on that day; and (c) obstructed the administration of justice as your conduct was unbecoming that of an Advocate. ( 9 ) AS the contemner is represented by counsel and one of them Mr. A. S. Rai is present, let the contemner appear before the Court on 26/07/1999 and answer the charge with whatever defence he may desire to offer being conscious of the fact that the Court, if the defence is not satisfactory, may consider the appropriate punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Put up on 26th July, 1999. " ( 10 ) THE Court has reproduces the report of the X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad regard being had to the circumstances of the case and the report which has been sent by the District Judge, Ghaziabad forwarding the resume of events recorded by the X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghaziabad supported by the reports of the two other judicial officers, on the direction of the District Judge. On the date fixed by the High Court the contemner was not present on 21/07/1999. He had not filed his defence as a counter-affidavit for which he sought and was granted adjournment in May last. ( 11 ) THE matter has been fixed before the Court today. ( 12 ) THE defence of the contemner by a counter-affidavit, for which he took time has not been submitted to the Court even now. Hereinafter the Court is noticing the proceeding in the sequence in which they have taken place. Today on behalf of the contemner arguments and submissions were put in by Mr. V. C. Misra Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ravindra Nath Rai Advocate, At the outset the Court drew the attention of counsel that the contemner had taken time from the Court on 11/05/1999 to file counter-affidavit and it has not filed. ( 13 ) WHEN this matter was taken up today, it was indicated to learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the contemner that the recorded charges must be read out to the contemner before he has his arguments submitted. Instead arguments were advanced as an insistence, first. ( 14 ) AN application and an affidavit was also filed. The submissions made by learned Senior Advocate were thus : There is no contempt. Instead arguments were advanced as an insistence, first. ( 14 ) AN application and an affidavit was also filed. The submissions made by learned Senior Advocate were thus : There is no contempt. The charge can be framed only if the contempt is committed in the High Court and in the present case no case for contempt is made out as it is based on a reference by the District Judge. May be the conduct of the contemner was not good and the conduct of the contemner may be bad but this is not contempt. It was submitted before the Court that if the Court tries the charges in this matter there will be a reaction and this will be an embarrassment to the members of Bar. It was indicated to the Court that the relation between Bench and Bar should be cordial. It was submitted that Courts are respected by the Bar on conventions and there is no law which require the members of the Bar to respect the Court. ( 15 ) THEN on behalf of the contemner it was submitted that the contemner (a) has not lowered the authority of the Court; and (b) has not obstructed the administration of justice. ( 16 ) IT was also argued on behalf of the contemner that the High Court under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India cannot take action in respect of contempt of subordinate Courts. It was submitted that the reference as has been made by the subordinate Court is bad. The attention of the Court was invited to S. 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, to argue that the High Court cannot take cognisance of the contempt alleged to have committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it when such an offence may also be punishable under Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances, a legal argument was advanced that if any action could be taken then it can only be under S. 228 of the Indian Penal Code. It was indicated to the Court that there has been no contempt committed at all before the subordinate Court and at the best the contemner can be tried for violation of S. 228 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 17 ) AT this stage an application accompanied by an affidavit was filed. It was indicated to the Court that there has been no contempt committed at all before the subordinate Court and at the best the contemner can be tried for violation of S. 228 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 17 ) AT this stage an application accompanied by an affidavit was filed. ( 18 ) THEN it was contended on behalf of the contemner, by learned Senior Advocate that the contemner had not consumed any alcohol on that day as alleged. All the liquor that he has taken he had done so the previous night when the petitioner was not in the Court of X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. He had a hang over as the quality of the liquor was bad and, the day before, the contemner Rajendra Singh Chaudhary, Advocate, had a mixture of cocktail. It was being explained to this Court that no liquor was taken on the day of the incident, i. e. 26/11/1997, but the day before and it was the hang-over which had got hold of the contemner. The report to the Court that the contemner had taken liquor on 26 November, is incorrect. The charge is wrong. ( 19 ) AFTER these submissions learned Senior Advocate took leave and departed from the Court. ( 20 ) HOWEVER, with submissions having been made, the Court required the Government Advocate, in his capacity as the public prosecutor, to complete the formality of reading out the charges from the Court record and permit the contemner to read the charges himself. ( 21 ) HAVING heard and read the charges the contemner desired that the application and affidavit filed today be noticed. The application prays that the contempt notices be discharged. The contents of the affidavit are reproduced. "1. That the deponent is the sole opposite party in this case and as such he is well acquainted with the facts deposed to below :- 2. That the deponent was enrolled as an Advocate on the roll of Advocates of Bar Counsel Uttar Pradesh on 31th Jan. 1973 and as such he has put the practice of 24 years at the district Court bar at Meerut and subsequent thereto on the creation of District Ghaziabad at District Court Ghaziabad. 3. That prior to this contempt petition deponent was never punished, convicted or prosecuted for any offence. 4. 1973 and as such he has put the practice of 24 years at the district Court bar at Meerut and subsequent thereto on the creation of District Ghaziabad at District Court Ghaziabad. 3. That prior to this contempt petition deponent was never punished, convicted or prosecuted for any offence. 4. That the deponent is a respectable citizen of Ghaziabad and belongs to a highly respectable family of Chaudharies having about 200 bighas of agriculture land owned by his family and having a palaces house consisting of 10 rooms in Ghaziabad. 5. That it is true that petitioner developed habit of taking liquor in the society and he only takes liquor in the night and never in his life has taken liquor during day. 6. That on the previous night of the alleged incident deponent consumed liquor of a bad quality offered by some office friends, as a result of which he suffered hanging on the next morning and was feeling highly unway and had vomitted in the earlier night and on the same morning. 7. That as some important cases were fixed on the date he, as an duty bound member of the bar went to Court, but feeled highly disturbed and it appears that under the such illhealth he lay on the bench in the Court room where he vomitted but he was not in a drunken state as alleged. 8. That it appears that the vomitting of the deponent may be smelling liquor the learned presiding officer and other officers thought it that the deponent is in drunken state but the fact that he was almost unconscious due to effect of liquor (sic ). 9. That the deponent is highly in its (sic) the incident and tender unqualified apologies for the act done because of his sick condition of mind and craves leave of this Honble Court to discharge him for the contempt. 10. That the deponent it is prayed high regard to the mystery of justice and there had been never any occasion for the judiciary to make any complaint against him, but for the present one which is accidental and not in tense, for which the deponent feels ashamed and undertakes that in future he will make it sure that such an occasion never arise. And invokes manamity of this Honble Court to discharge the notice of contempt against him and again and again tenders unqualified apologies and request they may be accepted. I, the deponent above named do hereby verify that the contents of paragraph No. 1 to 10 of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge which all I believe to be true that no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. So help me God. Deponent" ( 22 ) THE Court is not concerned whether the contemner, Rajendra Singh Chaudhary, Advocate, consumes liquor or does not consume liquor. This is his privacy. But the Court is concerned that the incident which the X Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, reported to the District Judge, and the latter referred to the High Court, is not a matter to be taken lightly. The contemner was not without an opportunity to take a defence, but he did not present it. The submissions made by learned Senior Counsel on his behalf were perhaps a good elucidation on what may or may not be contempt to a Court proceeding. But, the facts of this case concern the Court and have to be dealt with by the Court. The affidavit of the contemner only reiterates that anything which may have happened on 26-11-1997 is because the previous night the contemner Rajendra Singh Chaudhary Advocate had consumed liquor of bad quality, offered by some office friends. The hang over is being taken as a plea that nothing was drunk on the day when the contemner was found drunk in Court. Courts function as an institution as part of a public justice system and are not meant for drunk, hung over, vomitting and spitting lawyers. That substandard alcohol was drunk the previous day, is hardly a defence. A drunken unconscious lawyer in Court may be an ingenious plea for temporary insanity. The effect of drunkenness brought by a lawyer to a Court, embarrasses a Court and its functional attributes. Such a defence is itself a product of ale washed wits. ( 23 ) THERE is no contribution in the apology offered to the High Court. ( 24 ) THE Court views this matter with concern of rising disrespect to public Courts by lawyers. The Court is not concerned whether the contemner Rajendra Singh Chaudhary Advocate took liquor that day or the previous night. ( 23 ) THERE is no contribution in the apology offered to the High Court. ( 24 ) THE Court views this matter with concern of rising disrespect to public Courts by lawyers. The Court is not concerned whether the contemner Rajendra Singh Chaudhary Advocate took liquor that day or the previous night. He should have kept his intoxication to himself and not entered into the Court room at all. A Court is not meant for all this. As it is, this exceptional display of misplaced chauvinism by a drunk, vomitting and spitting lawyer, has, in the eyes of the public, litigants, other lawyers, and the Judges as an institution, scandalised and lowered the authority of the Court. Such behaviour of the contemner has interfered with the course of judicial proceedings of that day, as well obstructed the administration of justice in preventing the Court from functioning. ( 25 ) IS vomitting and spitting by a drunken advocate in a Court room any different from a shouting shoe slinging lawyer? On the latter example the Supreme Court said : A lawyer does not enjoy any special immunity under the Contempt of Courts Act where he is found to have committed a gross Contempt of Court, AIR 1999 SC 1300 : (1999 Cri LJ 2032), In Re Nand Lal Balwani. ( 26 ) THE Court finds the contemner guilty of Contempt of Court. In the circumstances the Court hereby punishes the contemner to three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 in default of payment, to undergo another three months simple imprisonment. The Court officer shall take the contemner under custody to the Registrar. ( 27 ) THE Court however brings to the notice of the contemner that should he desire to appeal against this judgment, which is his right, he may move this Court under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for suspension of the sentence or bail, as the case may be, and this Court shall consider such an application when filed. Order accordingly.