JUDGMENT - BARDE V.K., J.:---Heard Shri Kagatala learned Counsel for the contemner who is present in person before this Court and Smt. Rasal, learned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra. 2. This contempt petition is arising out of a reference made under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act by Smt. S.B. Gaikwad, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. Four accused persons who were arrested in connection with the Crime No. 242 of 98 of Chalisgaon Police Station for offences punishable under sections 302, 323, 504, 506 read with 34, Indian Penal Code filed Bail Application No. 609 of 98 in the Court of Sessions, Jalgaon. The matter came up for hearing before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 30-10-1998. The present contemner Shri More was the Advocate engaged by the accused in the said bail application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both the sides, rejected the application for bail of accused Nos. 1 Keshav and accused No. 4 Murlidhar. However, bail was granted to accused No. 2 Dagubai and accused No. 3 Kalabai by giving specific reasons for the same. 3. Thereafter, the two accused whose bail application was rejected filed review petition before the same Judge through the contemner. Certain personal allegations were made in the said review petition against the Presiding Judge Smt. Gaikwad. The said review petition was signed by the contemner Shri More. The contemner Shri More filed an affidavit in support of the review petition sworn by himself. 4. Even when there are many personal allegations against the learned Judge in the application for review, the learned Judge has not proceeded against the contemner with reference to those allegations in the review petition but, has taken exception to the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the contemner. She then issued notice to the contemner and called upon him to explain as to why action for Contempt of Courts should not be taken against him. The notice dated 9-11-1998 was served on the contemner. 5. Shri More then filed his reply to the notice before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 12-11-1998. No doubt, in the reply he has mentioned that there was no intention either to threaten or to scandalise or to lower the authority of the Court. The notice dated 9-11-1998 was served on the contemner. 5. Shri More then filed his reply to the notice before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 12-11-1998. No doubt, in the reply he has mentioned that there was no intention either to threaten or to scandalise or to lower the authority of the Court. He insisted that all the allegations were made because the learned Judge was partial while dealing with the application for bail. So, instead of expressing any regrets for the language used in the affidavit, or tendering apology for the same, the contemner practically reiterated the allegations in the review petition as well as in the affidavit. 6. On account of this attitude of the contemner the learned Additional Sessions Judge has forwarded this reference as per sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 7. Notice was served on the contemner. He appeared personally and he also filed his affidavit in reply on 3rd March, 1999. Along with this affidavit, he filed affidavit of certain persons to support his case. 8. The contention of the contemner is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Smt. Gaikwad was working as J.M.F.C. at Thane in the year, 1985. At that time, the contemner Shri More had made a complaint to the High Court against Smt. Gaikwad. An inquiry was held on the basis of that complaint. Smt. Gaikwad, therefore, had a grudge against the contemner. So when he appeared in the bail application before Smt. Gaikwad in the Court of Sessions at Jalgaon, she remembered the previous incident and then she uttered on 17-10-98 “You are the same Mr. More who reported me upto the High Court. Now I will see what is what”. It is alleged by the contemner that these remarks were passed in the open Court in the presence of the relatives of the accused. He has further alleged that on 30-10-1998 the learned Additional Sessions Judge when he was arguing the bail application, intentionally interrupted, shouted at him and said, “Shut up. Don't talk much. I know what is to be done. Don't raise of your voice furthermore, otherwise I will punish you for contempt”. 9. The contemner has contended that the bail application came to be rejected with respect to the two accused. So the review application was filed on 4-11-1998. Don't talk much. I know what is to be done. Don't raise of your voice furthermore, otherwise I will punish you for contempt”. 9. The contemner has contended that the bail application came to be rejected with respect to the two accused. So the review application was filed on 4-11-1998. The matter came up before the Additional Sessions Judge on 9-11-1998 and then he was made to sit in the Court till 5 p.m. At 5 p.m. he was called in the Chamber by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and then the notice was served upon him and he was asked to file his say on 13-11-1998. The review petition was not taken up for hearing. 10. The contemner has contended that on 12-11-1998 he appeared before the Sessions Judge, and the review petition was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge holding that there was no provision for review in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge directed the contemner to file fresh bail application if he so desired. Thereafter, he filed second bail application being Criminal Application No. 660 of 98. That application came to be allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. The contemner, therefore has contended that it is the petitioner that means Smt. Gaikwad, learned Additional Sessions Judge and not he who has committed contempt of courts on each of the dates mentioned above. It is the contention of the contemner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed sarcastic remarks whenever the contemner had appeared before her in the bail matter and in review petition. It is also his grievance that though he being a senior citizen, he was made to sit in the Court from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. 12. The contemner has not stopped here but, in his affidavit dated 3-3-1999 he has stated that he was surprised that when he was called in the chamber, he was expecting a cup of tea from the learned Additional Sessions Judge but, instead of that, a notice was served upon him. The contemner has not stopped here but, in his affidavit dated 3-3-1999 he has stated that he was surprised that when he was called in the chamber, he was expecting a cup of tea from the learned Additional Sessions Judge but, instead of that, a notice was served upon him. Furthermore, in the last para of his affidavit filed in this Court, he has observed like this— “I say that in view of the above facts and circumstances I have not committed any contempt intentionally but on the contrary application made on behalf of my clients as per their instructions is misunderstood by the petitioner because ladies take the smallest events as the biggest events. I may also point out that all the ladies are liers and that they are generally not believable.” 13. From the reference made by Smt. Gaikwad it is noticed that when she was working as J.M.F.C. at Thane in the year, 1985, a complaint was made against her by the present contemner Shri More. The matter was thoroughly inquired through the District Judge, Thane and then, as the allegation were found baseless, the complaint made against her was filed. She has specifically stated in the reference that when bail application came up for hearing before her at Jalgaon, she was not aware that Shri More was the very person who had made such a complaint against her. Only when the review application and affidavit were read by her, she realised that Shri More was the person who had made such a complaint against her. 14-15. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Shri Kagtala, learned Counsel for the contemner made a statement that the contemner wanted to tender unconditional apology by filing fresh affidavit and he wanted to withdraw the affidavit which is filed on 3-3-1999 and, thereafter, the contemner has filed another affidavit today wherein he has prayed that he be allowed to withdraw the affidavit-in-reply filed in this Court on 3-3-1999 and he further stated that he is tendering unconditional apology. He has also contended that he is of 67 years of age. He belongs to the poor strata of the society. His only source of livelihood is practice as Advocate. So, leniency be shown to him. 16. He has also contended that he is of 67 years of age. He belongs to the poor strata of the society. His only source of livelihood is practice as Advocate. So, leniency be shown to him. 16. The learned Counsel for the contemner has while arguing the matter, again stated that the contemner is tendering unconditional apology and is withdrawing the affidavit filed on 3-3-1999. So far as the statements made in the affidavit filed along with the review petition, the learned Counsel for the contemner has argued that as the bail application for the two accused was rejected, and as the contemner was aware of the fact that he had made previous complaint against the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he put two and two together and then made those allegations in the affidavit. In the disturbed condition of mind those statements are made in the affidavit. There was no intention of committing Contempt of Courts but, there was only intention of seeking justice to his clients. Though the contemner is practising Advocate, all the surrounding circumstances be taken into consideration and his unconditional apology be accepted. 17. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Smt. Rasal has pointed out in the statements made the affidavit and has argued that the statements are not only scandalous but, are containing threats to the Additional Sessions Judge. Such behaviour of a practising lawyer is not at all expected especially when he is well experienced and aged Advocate. She has also argued that when the show cause notice was served on the contemner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the contemner did not show any regrets for the statements made in the affidavit but, added insult to the injury. In the circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no other go but to make a reference under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned A.P.P. has further argued that when the matter came up in this Court, the contemner persisted with his conduct. The affidavit in reply which is filed by him on 3-3-1999 speaks voluminous about the set up of the mind of the contemner who has no regard for Court and the manner in which the matters should be handled in the Court. She, has pointed out that the contemner in the beginning ought not to have filed application for review of the order of rejection of bail. She, has pointed out that the contemner in the beginning ought not to have filed application for review of the order of rejection of bail. He must be knowing that in criminal proceedings, review application is not maintainable. Just to infuriate the Judge, the review application was filed and the contemner filed his own affidavit in support of the application. The behaviour of the contemner clearly indicates that the application was filed with a view to intimidate and scandalise the Judge. 18. The learned A.P.P. has strongly objected acceptance of unconditional apology filed by the contemner today. She has pointed out that whatever is done by the contemner by filing the affidavit on 3-3-1999 cannot be wiped out by filing fresh affidavit saying that the contemner is withdrawing his affidavit dated 3-3-1999. The mischief is already done. There are affidavits of certain persons filed along with the affidavit of the contemner but, those are the affidavits of the near and dear of the contemner. Those are filed only with a view to make out a case that the Additional Sessions Judge had uttered certain words in the open Court. But, in view of the reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it cannot be accepted that she had uttered any such words in the open Court and had insulted the contemner. The learned A.P.P. has also argued that if there had been any truth about such words uttered or remarks passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the contemner would have definitely made a complaint to the High Court or to the District Court or at least he would have applied to the Sessions Judge for transfer of the bail application to some other Judge on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge Smt. Gaikwad had grudge against him. But, no such step was taken by the contemner when the matter had come up for hearing for two-three dates before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This circumstance by itself shows that there is no substance in the contention that the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed such remarks in the open Court when the contemner was arguing the matter in bail application. This circumstance by itself shows that there is no substance in the contention that the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed such remarks in the open Court when the contemner was arguing the matter in bail application. She has, therefore, urged that the affidavits of Daulat Ahire, Sakhubai Jadhav, Bainabai More and Rajendra More be not considered as a valid ground, for the contemner to make such statements in the affidavit filed along with the review petition. All these allegations are by way of afterthought and those be ignored. 19. We, would like to reproduce the portion of the affidavit to which exception is taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to indicate how the affidavit has caused contempt of Court by scandalizing and intimidating the Court. The paragraph from the affidavit sworn by the contemner and filed before the Additional Sessions Judge reads as follows : “That this Honourable Court has utilised extra judicial powers in rejecting the bail to Sr. Nos. 1 and 4. That this honourable Court has committed an intentional mistake in rejecting the bail to petitioners Nos. 1 and 4, but was prejudiciously done on looking at the face value of the Advocate on record for petitioners with whom this Court had an occasion to fight on account of the fabrication of Court record in some case in the year 1985 at Thane in which the Advocate for the present petitioners was representing the accused when this Court was a J.M.F.C. at Thane On account of which the Advocate for the petitioner had reported this Court upto High Court of Judicature, Mumbai but because of the intervention of the then learned Advocate deceased Shri Shivhar Kamble and the practising High Court Advocate Shri V.A. Gangal that matter was settled and this learned Court could flourish well on the wall of reserved quota of S.C. and become Sessions Judge and posted at Jalgaon should have forgotten the inimical incidence of Thane and should not have taken the revenge of this Advocate for the petitioners in rejecting the bail of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 4. This Court has capriciously rejected their prayer of enlargement of bail for no other reasons but to take the revenge of the Advocate. 1 and 4. This Court has capriciously rejected their prayer of enlargement of bail for no other reasons but to take the revenge of the Advocate. In order to avoid further contingencies of being involved the writ jurisdiction of High Court of Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad under the provisions of Constitutional Tort in which this Court will be joined by name as one of the parties.” 20. First, we would like to point out that section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines criminal contempt. The question is whether any statement made in the pleadings or applications or other documents filed in the Court amounts to publication as contemplated under sub-section (c) of section 2 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In this respect we would like to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court in the matter in (In re: Ajay Kumar Pandey v. Virendra Saran, Advocate)1, reported in A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 3299. Their Lordships have observed in paragraph No. 24 : “Thus, it is now settled that abuses, attribution of motives, vituperative terrorism and scurrilous and indecent attacks on the impartiality of the Judges in the pleadings, applications or other documents filed in the Court or otherwise published which have the tendency to scandalise and undermine the dignity of the Court and the majesty of law amounts to criminal contempt of Court.” Thus, any statements made in the affidavit which amounts to contempt of courts are covered under the provisions of section 2(c) of the Act. 21. On going through this particular portion from the affidavit of the contemner filed in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, there cannot be two opinions that the contemner has made wild allegations against the learned Additional Sessions Judge only because the bail application filed by the contemner was not fully allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is imputed in this affidavit that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an “intentional mistake in rejecting the bail to petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 but was prejudiciously done on looking at the face value of the Advocate on record for petitioners with whom, this Court had an occasion to fight on account of the fabrication of Court record in some case in the year 1985 at Thane”. 22. 1 and 4 but was prejudiciously done on looking at the face value of the Advocate on record for petitioners with whom, this Court had an occasion to fight on account of the fabrication of Court record in some case in the year 1985 at Thane”. 22. From the report made by learned Additional Sessions Judge it is clear that the contemner Shri More had made a complaint against her to the High Court with respect to certain matters in the year 1985. That inquiry was held and she was completely exonerated. So if at all anybody had a grudge, it was the contemner who had the grudge. He made one attempt to malign the Judge when she was working as J.M.F.C. at Thane. When he got second chance of appearing before her at Jalgaon, and found that his application was partly rejected, filed the review petition which is not maintainable in criminal proceedings and an affidavit just to intimidate the Court and to take revenge. 23. The contemner had not stopped there but, he intimidated the Court by stating, “In order to avoid further contingencies of being involved in writ jurisdiction of High Court of Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad under the provisions of Constitutional Tort in which this Court will be joined by name as one of the parties”. A threat is given to the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the proceedings would be filed against her personally. Intimidation of such type cannot be tolerated. The parties who have not obtained orders as desired have the option of moving the Higher Court as per the procedure prescribed. But, saying that the Judge would be personally made party in the proceedings is going too far. Here all this is done not by the litigant himself but, by the Advocate who was appearing for the litigant. 24. In the above quoted ruling of the Supreme Court, Their Lordships have observed in paragraph 27 : “Does the law give a lawyer, unsatisfied with the result of a case, any licence to permit himself the liberty of scandalising a Court by casting unwarranted imputations against the Judge in discharge of his judicial functions? Does the lawyer enjoy any special immunity under the Contempt of Courts Act, where he is found to have committed a gross Contempt of Court? the answer has to be an emphatic No.” 25. Does the lawyer enjoy any special immunity under the Contempt of Courts Act, where he is found to have committed a gross Contempt of Court? the answer has to be an emphatic No.” 25. It is thus, very clear that the contemner has crossed all the abounds while making allegations against the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the above quoted ruling of the Supreme Court, Their Lordships have observed :--- “No system of justice can tolerate such unbridged licence on the part of a person, be he a lawyer, to permit himself the liberty of scandalising the Court by casting unwarranted, uncalled for and unjustified aspersions on the integrity, ability, impartiality or fairness, of a Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions, as it undoubtedly amounts to an interference with the due course of administration of justice.” Here in the affidavit filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the contemner has made a statement: “Court could flourish well on the wall of reserved quota of S.C. and become Sessions Judge and posted at Jalgaon should have forgotten the inimical incidence of Thane and should not have taken the revenge of this Advocate for the petitioners in rejecting the bail of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 4.” By making such statements, contemner Shri More has made unjustified observations regarding the integrity, ability and impartiality of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is being alleged that as the learned Additional Sessions Judge happens to be of Scheduled Caste community only on that ground she is promoted, in the cadre of Additional Sessions Judge. The contemner Shri More has forgotten that the promotions are given to the Judges from Junior Cadre by the High Court by following the prescribed procedure. Making these allegations means doubting the judgment of the High Court also while giving the promotions to the Judges from Junior Cadre. We fail to understand how this particular sentence has any relevance in the matter which was placed before the Additional Sessions Judge by way of review petition. 26. It is thus, very clear that Shri More has used indecent language in the affidavit which scandalises or tend to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of the Court. It definitely interferes in due course of judicial proceedings. Intimidating language is used so that, the Judge would not be able to decide the matters as per his free conscious. It definitely interferes in due course of judicial proceedings. Intimidating language is used so that, the Judge would not be able to decide the matters as per his free conscious. We, therefore, hold that the contemner has committed criminal contempt. 27. The learned Counsel for the contemner has urged to accept unconditional apology tendered by the contemner. However, this apology has come at a very late stage. It should have been before the Additional Sessions Judge herself when she had served a notice on the contemner. It should have been at least when the contemner appeared and filed his affidavit in this Court on 3-3-1999. We have specifically pointed out that the matters stated by the contemner in his affidavit filed on 3-3-1999 and it shows that the apology which is given before this Court at the final stage of hearing is neither spontaneous nor bona fide. Just to find out a way to escape from the punishment that may be imposed, the contemner has filed his second affidavit containing unconditional apology. In the given circumstances, we do not intend to accept this unconditional apology which is neither spontaneous nor bona fide. 28. The next question arose-what should be the punishment? The learned Counsel for the contemner has argued that the contemner is very old man of 67 years of age. He is a practising lawyer. He was very much perturbed because of the rejection of bail for two of his clients and, therefore, he made such allegations in the review petition and the affidavit. He, therefore, prayed, for a lenient view to be taken in this matter. 29. The learned A.P.P. Smt. Rasal has argued that the contemner is a practising lawyer. He has put in practice of more than 15 years. He should know how to behave before the Court. He should also know what should be there in the pleadings and the affidavits. If a Senior Advocate like him behaves in such a way in the matter before the Court, then he must be dealt with strong hand and no leniency be shown. 30. In this Court on 3-3-1999 the contemner has filed the affidavits of some other persons to make further allegations against the learned Additional Sessions Judge. If a Senior Advocate like him behaves in such a way in the matter before the Court, then he must be dealt with strong hand and no leniency be shown. 30. In this Court on 3-3-1999 the contemner has filed the affidavits of some other persons to make further allegations against the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Those were clearly unwarranted in the present proceeding but, he wants to make out a case that the learned Additional Sessions Judge used some words when he was arguing the matter before her. According to the contemner, such remarks were passed on the date before the final date of hearing. Any Advocate who had become aware that the Court was prejudiced against him, would have taken the matter to the Sessions Judge with a request for transfer. And if he had been very much offended, he would have made a complaint to the High Court immediately. Here, neither of the courses was adopted by the contemner Shri More. Only when the bail application was partly rejected, he took up the matter in ugly manner by making allegations against the Additional Sessions Judge and now to boost his case, such affidavits are filed in this Court, which are not worth relying. 31. The falsity of this stand is very clear from the affidavit dated 3-3-1999 filed in this Court. He has stated that when he was called in the chamber by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he was expecting a cup of tea. If the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed any of those remarks in open Court, nobody would have expected a cup of tea in the chamber from the same Judge. This clearly shows that no such remarks were passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Now an attempt is made to prejudice this Court against the learned Additional Sessions judge. 31-A. While considering the question of punishment, we have to take into consideration all these circumstances. But at the same time, we keep in mind the old age of the contemner and, therefore, instead of passing sentence of imprisonment, we hold that the ends of justice will meet by imposing sentence of fine only. 32. The reference is accepted. Hence the contemner Shri M.D. More, Advocate, Chalisgaon is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. But at the same time, we keep in mind the old age of the contemner and, therefore, instead of passing sentence of imprisonment, we hold that the ends of justice will meet by imposing sentence of fine only. 32. The reference is accepted. Hence the contemner Shri M.D. More, Advocate, Chalisgaon is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- as per the provisions of section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in default of payment of fine, S.I. for one month. Order accordingly. -----