P. K. JAIN, J. Contemner Kamal Narain Singh filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 91 of 1998 with following two main prayers:- (i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature olcertiorari quashing the First Informa tion Report dated 30-12-97 under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Act (Annexure-9to the writ petition ). (ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to arrest the petitioner in case Crime No. 376 of 1997, under Section 3 (1) of the U. P Gangster Act, 1986, P. S. Mohammadabad, Dis trict Farrukhabad dated 30-12- 1997 (An-nexure-IX to the writ petition ). While disposing of the said writ peti tion we had passed the following order on 11-2-98. "the prayer of the petitioner is to quash the First Information Report giving rise to registration of case crime No. 376 of 1997 under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Gangster and Ami Social Activities Act, 1986 Police Station Mohammadabad, District Farrukhabad. The moot ground formulated in this writ petition and as pressed before us was that even though the petitioner happens to be an active worker of the Samajwadi Party, he has been implicated at the instance of his political opponent belonging to the Ruling Bhartiya Janta Party. " On 15-1-98 the following order was passed by us: As requested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner put up this writ petition on Wed nesday next dated 21-1-98 to enable him to file a supplementary affidavit enclosing the docu ments showing primary membership of the political parties, with which, he is claiming his affiliation. Pursuant to the aforementioned order the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit bring ing on record Xerox copy of the receipt (Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit) form No. 30173 of 17th July, 1996 said to have been issued by one Saral Dubey adhyaksh Zila Karyakarni under his signature as well as under the signature of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, rashtriya Adhyaksh Samajwadi Party. On a bare looking to the document we become suspi cious because out of the five words saral the words "sa. La. Du. " bear repetitions. Even the flow of the writing of the two alleged signatures appeared to be not natural. Accordingly, we had proceeded to pass the following order on 9-2-98: The petitioner files a supplementary af fidavit. On a bare looking to the document we become suspi cious because out of the five words saral the words "sa. La. Du. " bear repetitions. Even the flow of the writing of the two alleged signatures appeared to be not natural. Accordingly, we had proceeded to pass the following order on 9-2-98: The petitioner files a supplementary af fidavit. Put up tomorrow so that Sri Tripathi learned A. G. A. could ascertain the signatures of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav filed in support of his claim that he is a primary member of the Samaj-vadi Party. Sri Tripathi, learned A. G. A. produces before us a document containing the signatures of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, the then Chief Minister of this State dated 21-10-1994. The document produced before us has been sent to him through Fax No. 523481 from the Special Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh on a Government paper. Thus, there is no doubt that the document produced before us by Sri Tripathi, learned A. G. A. bears the signature of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, the then Chief Mini ster of this State, which is at variance with the signature appearing in Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. We have thus, no hesitation in holding that Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit is a forged and fictitious document. No relief can be granted to the petitioner, who has come up to obtain a Rule from this Court on the basis of a forged and fictitious document. For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. Since the petitioner has produced before us a forged and fictitious document to his knowledge for the purpose of obtaining a Rule, we are of the view that he has committed not only contempt of this Court but also offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Issue notice to him as to why ap propriate orders in that regard be not passed against him. Since Mr. Katiyar learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he has instructed only to appear in the case which has been dis missed, let office issue a notice to the petitioner on the address given in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit making the Rule retur nable on 25th March, 1998. The notice to be registered as a separate criminal contempt case. The notice to be registered as a separate criminal contempt case. Sd/-B. K. Roy,j. Sd/-P. K. Jain,j. " On the basis of the said order dated 11-2-98 Criminal Contempt Case No. 17 of 1998 was registered against the contem-ner. The contemner Kamal Narain Singh did not appear in person pursuant to our order dated 11-2-98. On 15-4-98 Sri Vivek Mishra, Advocate filed Vakalatnama on behalf of contemner and Sri V. C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on be half of the contemner submitted that since the contemner has not been served with notice he is not aware of the charges nor he was aware that he is required to appear personally before the Court though he came in the morning hours in his Chamber in the Court. We had passed the following order dated 15-4-98: "seen the report dated 13-4-98 of the Registrar. In view of the action taken by him no further action is required on the judicial side of the Court. After detailed reasons recorded vide our order dated 11-2-98 we had dismissed the contemners Criminal Writ Petition No. 91 of 1998. We had also proceeded to record findings of fact against the contemner that since he has produced before us a forged and fictitious docu ment to his knowledge for the purpose of ob taining a Rule, thereby he has committed not only contempt of this Court but also offence punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and had issued notice to him as to why appropriate orders in that regard be not passed against him by us. The aforementioned order was passed in presence of Mr. Katiyar, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-contemner. We had also noted his stand that he has instructions only to appear in this writ case which was dismissed by us. In that view of the matter we had directed issuance of notice to the contemner by the office on the address given by him in his writ petition and the supplementary affidavit making the Rule returnable on 25th March, 1998. The contemner did not appear on 25-3-98. The office put up a note dated 25-3-98 that in compliance of the Courts order notice was issued to the contemner through the C. J. M. , Farrukhabad but the service report has not been received. Vide our order dated 25-3- 98 we extended the returnable date to 15th April, 1998. The contemner did not appear on 25-3-98. The office put up a note dated 25-3-98 that in compliance of the Courts order notice was issued to the contemner through the C. J. M. , Farrukhabad but the service report has not been received. Vide our order dated 25-3- 98 we extended the returnable date to 15th April, 1998. We also directed the office to have the report of the C. J. M. , Farrukhabad at once. The office has put up a report that the C. J. M. , Far rukhabad has reported to the effect that Kamal Narain Singh (the contemner herein), is absconding in relation to case crime No. 376 of 1997 under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Gangster Act and hence notice could not be served. The contemner, however, files a Vakalat-nama before us through Sri Vivek Mishra, Ad vocate, Chamber No. 57, New Building, High Court, Allahabad. Keep it on record. Sri V. C. Misra, the learned Counsel ap pearing on behalf of the contemner, prays to adjourn this case on the ground that since the contemner has not been served with notice he is not aware of the charges nor was he aware that he is required to appear personally in Court today though he has come in the morning hours in his Chambers in Court. We do not want to record any positive finding in regard to the merit of the defence taken on behalf of the contemner at this stage as to whether he was aware of the orders of the Court earlier or not except to note the following apparent fact:- (i) We had passed our earlier order in open Court in presence of his previous Counsel. Unless his Counsel has informed the contemner of this proceeding it will be a million dollar question as to why he approached Mr. Mishra in his Chambers for his appearance in the Court. The word notice means knowledge. We will presume that the contemner was aware of the charges which we had framed against him. We had not exempted his personal appearance from his criminal contempt proceedings and under the Rules of the Court he was expected to appear personally today the date fixed from before. The word notice means knowledge. We will presume that the contemner was aware of the charges which we had framed against him. We had not exempted his personal appearance from his criminal contempt proceedings and under the Rules of the Court he was expected to appear personally today the date fixed from before. We, accordingly, further charge him as to why he should not be punished for not per sonally presenting himself today and for that purpose we issue another notice to him fixing 10 a. m. of Tuesday dated the 28th April, 1998. Since Mr. Misra, learned Counsel states that he has no instructions to receive notice of this second criminal contempt proceedings we direct the office to despatch another notice to the contemner at the address mentioned by him in his writ petition as well as supplementary affidavit including the Vakalatnama which has been filed today. We reserve our further com ments in this regard awaiting his appearance on 28th April, 1998 alongwith his show-cause in the first criminal contempt proceedings as well as the second criminal contempt proceedings which we have initiated which has to be registered separately by the office and put up together on the adjourned date. " On the basis of the above order criminal contempt case No. 35 of 1998 was registered against the contemner. 2. During the pendency of these two contempt proceedings it was brought to the notice of the Court that even though Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 91 of 1998 filed on behalf of the contemner was dismissed by us vide order dated 11-2-98 the petitioner filed yet another Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1236 of 1998 and obtained orders dated 9-4-98 by a Division Bench of this Court staying the arrest of the contemner in case crime No. 376 of 1997, P. S. Mohammadabad, district Far rukhabad with regard to offence under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1996. In earlier writ petition No. 91 of 1998 also prayer for quashing the FIR in case crime No. 376 of 1997, under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Gangster Act, P. S. Mohammadabad district Farrukhabad was made. In earlier writ petition No. 91 of 1998 also prayer for quashing the FIR in case crime No. 376 of 1997, under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Gangster Act, P. S. Mohammadabad district Farrukhabad was made. While ob taining the order dated 9-4-98 from a Division Bench of this Court the petitioner concealed the factum of his first writ petition No 91 of 1998 having been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11-2- 98. On the other hand, in the affidavit in support of the writ petition filed by Sri Rala Ram, Pairokar of the petitioner categorically made false statement in paragraph 1 of the petition that this was the first writ petition with regard to the instant matter before this Honble Court as there is no ether writ petition/case pending in this regard in any Court of law. When the above facts were brought to our notice we had passed the following order dated 10-7-98: "seen the report sent by the C. J. M. , Far rukhabad. (2) It appears therefrom that the contemner Kamal Narain Singh had obtained restrained order from this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1236 of 1998, Kamal Narain v. State of U. P. & another. We called for the records of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1236 of 1998, filed by the cpntemner, from which it is clear that in paragraph 1 of this writ petition he has falsely stated that the said writ petition is the first writ petition whereas the true fact is that the said writ petition was second in number. The petitioner has deliberately not stated the factum of filing of his earlier writ petition bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 91 of 1998 which we had heard and dismissed. Accordingly, we initiate yet another criminal contempt proceedings against him for the aforementioned reason. Office to registrar it separately and put up alongwith these proceed ings under the order of Honble the Chief Jus tice and despatch notice to him at once. (3) At the same time we direct the learned A. G. A. Sri Jagdish Tewari to file an appropriate application before that Bench for recalling the order dated April 9,1998 passed by the Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1236 of 1998 for the aforementioned reason. (3) At the same time we direct the learned A. G. A. Sri Jagdish Tewari to file an appropriate application before that Bench for recalling the order dated April 9,1998 passed by the Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1236 of 1998 for the aforementioned reason. (4) The Police has failed to apprehend him and produce before this Court in these contempt proceedings. We, accordingly, direct the Senior Superintendent of Police Farrukhabad to arrest the contemner and produce before this Court in these two criminal con tempt proceedings. (5) Put up these cases awaiting his production before this Court on 24th July, 1998 in Chambers at 1. 40 p. m. (6) The office is directed to handover two copies of this order by Monday dated 13-7-98 to Sri Jagdish Tewari, learned A. G. A. for a follow up action. " On the basis of the above order criminal contempt Case No. 59 of 1998 was registered against the contemner. 3. Pursuant to our command the police of Farrukhabad made vigorous ef forts to apprehend the contemner and produce him before us but he could not be apprehended and the Senior Superinten dent of Police, Farrukhabad sent his letter dated 23rd July, 1998 intimating that all possible places were searched out for his arrest but the contemner was absconding and concealing himself. We, therefore, by order dated 24-7-98 directed that since the contemner is deliberately avoiding his ap pearance we attach his immovable proper ties and direct the S. S. P. , Farrukhabad to execute our order and report back its execution positively on the next date. Efforts to apprehend the contemner continued and even a reward has to be declared by the police authorities for apprehending the contemner. Ultimately the contemner could be apprehended on 19th May, 1999 on the basis of the information received from the informers. An application dated 21st May, 1999 was moved by the learned Additional Government Advocate pray ing the Court to pass appropriate orders in order to avoid any technicalities in the matter of detention of Kamal Narain Singh as well as his production before this Court. We had passed the following order dated 22-5-99: "heard Sri Jagdish Tewari, learned Government Advocate in support of this peti tion in our Chambers. The contemner Kamal Narain Rai, who was absconding, has been finally apprehended at 6. We had passed the following order dated 22-5-99: "heard Sri Jagdish Tewari, learned Government Advocate in support of this peti tion in our Chambers. The contemner Kamal Narain Rai, who was absconding, has been finally apprehended at 6. 45 p. m. on 19-5-99 and through this petition prayers have been made to pass appropriate orders in this regard in order to avoid tech nicalities and for fixation of a date by us for his production. Since he has been finally caught out as no specific date has been fixed by us for his produc tion before us. We direct this Criminal Misc. Application filed before us after obtaining our leave in Chambers, to be placed on Monday dated 24-5-99, after registering its number, along with the records of Criminal Contempt Case No. 17 of 1998 at 1. 40 p. m. in Chambers of one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.) under orders of Honble the Chief Justice or in his absence by the Honble Senior Judge of the Court under Rules of the Court. " 4. Pursuant to our orders dated 22-5-99 the contemner was produced before us on 24-5-99. On hearing Sri Jagdish Tewari, learned Government Advocate and the contemner Kamal Narain Singh we had passed the following order dated 24-5-99: "the contemner Kamal Narain Singh son of Sheo Nandan Singh resident of village Lakhrauwa Police Station Mohammadabad District Farrukhabad is being produced before us by Sri Vijai Pal Singh, Circle Officer, Amrit-pur district Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh through Sri Jagdish Tewari, learned Government Advo cate on whose application filed on 21-5-99 we had passed the following order in our Cham bers: heard Sri Jagdish Tewari, learned Government Advocate in support of this peti tion in our Chambers. The contemner Kamal Narain Rai, who was absconding, has been finally apprehended at 6. 45 p. m. on 19-5-99 and through this petition prayers have been made to pass appropriate orders in this regard in order to avoid tech nicalities and for fixation of a date by us for his production. Since he has been finally caught but as no specific date has been fixed by us for u;s produc tion before us, we direct this Criminal Misc. application, filed before us after obtaining our leave in Chambers, to be placed on Monday dated 24-5-99, after registering its number, alongwith the records of criminal contempt case No. 17 of 1998 at 1. application, filed before us after obtaining our leave in Chambers, to be placed on Monday dated 24-5-99, after registering its number, alongwith the records of criminal contempt case No. 17 of 1998 at 1. 40 p. m. in Chambers of one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.) under orders of Honble the Chief Justice or in his absence by the Honble Senior Judge of the Court under Rules of the Court. Sd/- Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/-P. K. Jain,j. " "the contemner states his name, parentage, residence, police station and District mentioned as above. He further states that when we had dismissed his writ petition or. 11 -2-1998, which was argued by Sri Vimal Chandra Katiyar, he was not present in Court but he was personally present in Court No. 35 when his Senior Counsel Sri V. C. Mishra had appeared before us we had advised him to leave the Court-room and see in his Chambers. He fur ther says that Sri V. C. Mishra had obtained his signatures on a Vakalatnama and on 6-7 blank papers for the purposes of moving the Supreme Court against our orders dismissing his writ peti tion. He further says that after we had passed orders in the contempt proceedings he had met his Counsel Sri V. C. Mishra on two occasions; on both occasions Sri Mishra told him to come with money as he is going to Delhi. He further states that it was his Counsel Sri V. C. Mishra who had obtained certified copy of 2-3 orders passed by us in his cases. He further says that after being reminded of handing money to him, he handed over a sum of Rs. 20,000 in cash to Sri V. C. Mishra. On being asked by us as to can he disclose the precise date on which he had handed over the aforementioned sum of Rs. 20,000 he states that he cannot say the exact date but the aforementioned amount was handed over to him 2-3 days after he had ob tained certified copy of the orders passed by us, which he had shown to him. He further states that in regard to these contempt proceedings Sri Mishra had told him that he will get an order passed by the Supreme Court staying further proceedings in these contempt proceedings. He further states that in regard to these contempt proceedings Sri Mishra had told him that he will get an order passed by the Supreme Court staying further proceedings in these contempt proceedings. He further states that he tried to contact Sri V. C. Mishra on telephone but instead of him, his son, who is a Counsel and sits in his chambers told him that his writ has been filed in the Supreme Court and that he will be informed of the orders pas J therein. He further states adds that since warrants were already issued against him and therefore out of fear he has escaped. On being asked by us as to whether he intends to do Pairvies in these contempt. proceedings he states that he does not have money to engage any Counsel. On being further asked by us as to whether if we request any State Counsel to assist him in these three criminal contempt proceed ings, he states that he will feel obliged if we permit his representation even by any State Counsel. On being requested by us, Miss Nahid Ara Moonis, learned A. G. A. states that she is willing to defend him provided the office is directed to hand-over necessary papers and the police authorities take him to her office situated in the High Court building itself. The facts stated by the contemner prima facie constitutes committal of criminal contempt by Sri V. C. Mishra, his Senior Counsel as well as Sri Vivek Mishra, his son, who were Advocates on the record in the first criminal contempt proceedings bearing Criminal Con tempt No. 17 of 1998. However, before saying anything in this regard it appears imperative on our part to give an opportunity to the aforemen tioned learned Advocates to have their say in this regard. Accordingly, we adjourn these three criminal contempt proceedings to day-after-tomorrow directing the office to serve a X-rox copy of this order on both aforementioned learned Advocates in course of the day. The Police authority, who is personally present before us, is directed to take the con-temner to Miss Moonis in her office today as well as tomorrow in the evening at about 4. 00 p. m. Since the contemner is in the police cus tody we direct the Police authority concerned to keep him in Police Station Civil Lines for his further production on the adjourned date. 00 p. m. Since the contemner is in the police cus tody we direct the Police authority concerned to keep him in Police Station Civil Lines for his further production on the adjourned date. Since there may be delay on the part of the office to hand-over copy of the various papers referred to above by us to Miss Moonis, we permit her to inspect the records in Court No. 35 in course of the day itself or if she so likes even for further inspection in Court No. 35 tomor row. The Copying Section of the Department of the Court is directed to furnish particulars of the application/applications for whom they have been filed and to whom theyvsre handed-over, for supplying certified copy of the orders passed in the writ petition as also in the contempt proceedings. Put up these criminal contempt proceed ings for passing further appropriate orders as already stated day-after-tomorrow in our Chambers at 1. 40 p. m. under orders of the Honble the Chief Justice. We clarify that the office is required to serve a copy of the relevant order-sheet of these three criminal contempt proceedings including the order dated 11-2-98 passed by us while dis missing the contemners Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 91 of 1998 to Miss Moonis, learned A. G. A. by tomorrow. The office is also directed to hand-over a X-rox copy of our order to Sri Jagdish Tewari, learned A. G. A. in course of the day. " Sd/- Hon. Binod Kumar Roy, J. Sd/-Hon. P. K. Jain, J. " 5. Pursuant to the order dated 24-5-99 copy of the order was received by Sri V. C. Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra on 25-5-99 and office reports that complete order-sheet alongwith relevant papers as desired by Miss Moonis, learned A G. A. were handed-over to her as per endorsement dated 25-5-99. 6. All the three criminal contempt cases were taken up by us on 26-5-99. The contemner did not file any show-cause in the aforesaid three criminal contempt cases. Miss Moonis, learned A. G. A. ap pearing on behalf of the contemner, how ever, submitted that the contemner reiterates what he had stated on 24- 5-99 which already stands recorded in our order dated 24-5-99. She further submits that for the aforesaid reasons the contemner is tendering his unqualified apologies which, be accepted and Rule issued be discharged. Miss Moonis, learned A. G. A. ap pearing on behalf of the contemner, how ever, submitted that the contemner reiterates what he had stated on 24- 5-99 which already stands recorded in our order dated 24-5-99. She further submits that for the aforesaid reasons the contemner is tendering his unqualified apologies which, be accepted and Rule issued be discharged. She further prayed that in pursuance to our orders the properties of the contemner had been attached. Since the contemner has been apprehended, the properties may be directed to be released. 7. Sri V. C. Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra appeared in person and stated that the statements made by the contemner are wholly false, frivolous and motivated for the purposes of damaging their integrity and reputation at the instance of their enemies. They also prayed to withdraw their appearance from first criminal con tempt proceeding 17 of 98 in which alone they had entered appeal earlier. It is sub mitted that such a prayer was made by them earlier also orally in view of the fact that the contemner was not responding to their call and thus had gone beyond their advice and control. 8. Having heard Miss Moonis, learned A. G. A. appearing for the contem ner, Sri V. C. Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra in person as well as Sri J. N. Tewari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. C. Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra and Sri Jag-dish Tewari, learned Government Advo cate, we reserved our orders for the reasons stated in our orders dated 26th May, 1999. 9. As already stated above Sri V. C. Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra have categorically stated that the statements given by the contemner on 24-5-99 as recorded in our order dated 24-5-99 are absolutely false and have been given in order to harm them and to damage their reputations whereas during arguments Miss Moonis, learned A. G. A. stated that the contemner reiterates that he had told to the Court on 24-5-99. Since the state ment made by the contemner against Sri V. C. Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra has been challenged we find that there is no material before us to believe the statement given by the contemner. On the other hand, we find that Criminal Misc. Since the state ment made by the contemner against Sri V. C. Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra has been challenged we find that there is no material before us to believe the statement given by the contemner. On the other hand, we find that Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1236 of 1998 was filed by the contemner through one Sri Ramesh Sinha, Advocate on 27-3-98 and the order of stay of arrest was ob tained on 9-4-98. The contemner, how ever, for purposes of defending contempt case No. 17 of 1998 engaged Sri-V. C. Mish ra and Sri Vivek Mishra and conceal from them the factum of another writ petition having been filed by him. This shows how clever the contemner is and he has beefl engaging different Counsel in different cases relating to the same matter. Even though the contemner in his statement as recorded in our order dated 24-5-99 stated that he had left the Court-room on the advice of his Counsel Sri V. C. Mishra and that Sri V. C. Mishra had obtained signa ture on a Vakalatnama and on 6-7 blank papers for the purposes of moving the Supreme Court against our order dismiss ing his writ petition and that after we had passed orders in the contempt proceedings he had met his Counsel Sri V. C. Mishra on two occasions; on both occasions Sri VC. Mishra had told him to come with money as he was going to Delhi; Sri Mishra had obtained certified copy of 2-3 orders passed by us in his cases and further that he had handed over a sum of Rs. 20,000 in cash to Sri VC. Mishra and in regard to these criminal contempt proceedings Sri VC. Mishra had told him that he will get an order passed by the Supreme Court staying further proceedings in these contempt proceedings and further that he had con tacted Sri V. C. Mishra on telephone and he had told that he will be informed of the orders passed therein, there is no material before us to substantiate the statements. Mishra had told him that he will get an order passed by the Supreme Court staying further proceedings in these contempt proceedings and further that he had con tacted Sri V. C. Mishra on telephone and he had told that he will be informed of the orders passed therein, there is no material before us to substantiate the statements. We have already noticed above that in second writ petition No. 1236 of 1998 the contemner through his Pairokar Lala Ram had stated that this was the first writ petition with regard to the instant matter before this Honble Court as there is no other writ petition/case pending in this regard in any Court of law. Such a state ment was made by the contemner in the written statement on oath through his Pairokar Lala Ram knowing fully well that his first writ petition No. 91 of 1998 on the same facts and with regard to the same subject-matter had been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11-2-98. It is apparent from the cir cumstance that the contemner Kamal Narain Singh is a man who can make any sort of false statement which may suit him and may serve his purpose. We have no reason to reject the submission of Sri J. N. Tewari, learned, Counsel appearing for Sri VC. Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra that the statement, in all probabilities, has been given by the contemner in order to save his skin from punishment that may be awarded to him in the contempt proceed ings. In our view, the statement of the contemner, which is not supported by any corroborative material and possibility of which being false in the circumstances stated above cannot be ruled-out, cannot be accepted. 10. In the circumstances stated above we also permit Sri VC. Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra to withdraw their ap pearance from Criminal Contempt Case No. 17 of 1998 in which alone they had entered appearance on behalf of the con temner. 11. Now coming to the three con tempt proceedings against contemner Sri Kamal Narain Singh we may again observe that the stand taken by him in his state ment dated 24-5-99, which originally ap peared to be his defence, is not acceptable. The contemner has not filed any show cause. 11. Now coming to the three con tempt proceedings against contemner Sri Kamal Narain Singh we may again observe that the stand taken by him in his state ment dated 24-5-99, which originally ap peared to be his defence, is not acceptable. The contemner has not filed any show cause. It is not disputed on behalf of the contemner that the acts of commission or omission as recorded by us in our orders dated 11-2-98 (Criminal Contempt Case No. 17 of 1998), 15-4-98 (Criminal Con tempt Case No. 35 of 1998) and 10-7-1998 (Criminal Contempt Case No. 59 of 1998) do not constitute criminal contempt. The defence originally taken by the contemner has not been accepted by us. Therefore, we hold the contemner guilty of contempt of courts in all these three contempt cases and convict him accordingly. 12. We have heard Miss Moonis, learned A. G. A. who is defending the contemner. Her submission that the contemner tenders unqualified apology cannot be accepted in the circumstances of the present case. The contemner not only forged signature of the Ex-Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav in order to obtain an order from this Court, he also made false statement and remained absconding for more than a year. As pointed out by Sri Jagdish Tewari, learned Government Advocate, Government had to spend around Rs. 2 lacs in procuring his attendance before this Court and reward of Rs. 20,000 had to be declared on his arrest. The entire police machinery of Farrukhabad District was kept sweating for about a year in order to apprehend him. There is no sufficient reason to accept the apology tendered by the contemner. We have already observed above that he is a person who can make a statement suitable to him according to the circumstances. The apologies tendered by him, in our view, are not bonafide and have been tendered only to escape punishment in the contempt proceedings. 13. Having considered the cir cumstances and gravity of the contempt committed by the contemner in each con tempt case we sentence the contemner Kamal Narain Singh to under go 2 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,00, Criminal simple in prisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 13. Having considered the cir cumstances and gravity of the contempt committed by the contemner in each con tempt case we sentence the contemner Kamal Narain Singh to under go 2 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,00, Criminal simple in prisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. Contempt Case No. 17 of 1998,2 mouths in criminal contempt case No. 35 of 1998; and 4 months simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000 in criminal contempt case No. 59 of 1998. In default of payment of fine the contem ner shall under go further imprisonment for a period of 15 days each in Criminal Contempt Case No. 17 of 1998 and Criminal Contempt Case No. 35 of 1998 and one months imprisonment in Criminal Contempt Case No. 59 of 1998. The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently in all the three Criminal Contempt Cases. 14. Since the properties of the con temner were attached pursuant to our order dated 24-7-98 and the contemner has been finally arrested and produced before us, the prayer on behalf of the con temner that his attached properties be released, is hereby allowed. We, according ly, direct that the properties of the contem ner attached pursuant to our orders dated 24-7-98shall be released. 15. The ban imposed by us on the media vide our order dated 26-5- 99 is now revoked. Binod Kumar Roy, J.-I fully agree with the order of Honble Mr. Justice P. K. Jain. 17. However, as something happened before me alone which compels me to pass an additional order. 18. We both sat to hear all these three contempt cases in my Chamber on 24-5-99 under orders of Honble the Chief Justice. The computerised list showed the name of Sri VC. Mishra and Sri Vivek Mishra the Counsel of the contemner. However, when these cases were called out both learned Counsel were found absent. 19. As the contemner after his production by the police had made certain statements against his learned Advocates we sent words repeatedly to Sri VC. Mish ra and Sri Vivek Mishra for their presence. We waited for more than about 20 minutes for their arrival. We were told that both of them have been informed. As none of them turned up we proceeded to pass our order dated 24-5-1999 and parted. 20. I alongwith Honble Mr. Mish ra and Sri Vivek Mishra for their presence. We waited for more than about 20 minutes for their arrival. We were told that both of them have been informed. As none of them turned up we proceeded to pass our order dated 24-5-1999 and parted. 20. I alongwith Honble Mr. Justice D. R. Chaudhary resumed our work in Court No. 35. At about 3. 15 p. m. Sri VC. Mishra entered Court No. 35 and asked me the reason for his search telling that he was making submissions in another Court when he received the message and that as he or his son ceased to have any concern, therefore, they did not attend our proceed ings then. At that time I and Honble Mr. Justice Chaudhary were in midst of hear ing one of the cases. As I had proceeded to sign our order dated 24-5-1999 passed in these three contempt proceedings by then I requested Sri VC. Mishra to take his seat and go through our order aforesaid. 20. 1. After going through our order dated 24-5-1999 Sri VC. Mishra became infuriated and started making wild and uncalled for comments in loud words. Myself and Brother Chaudhary both were surprised at his utterances and demeanour. The records were sent to Honble Mr. Justice P. K. Jain for his signa ture. I protested. Sri. VC. Mishra went to the extent of condemning the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in which he was held guilty of committal of contempt. I told him not to do so as it appeared to have crossed limits of fair criticism and I had to tell him to leave the Court-room and allow its proceedings to continue otherwise no option will be left but to initiate proceed ings in contempt against him for scandalis ing our administration of justice etc. It appeared that Sri VC. Mishra then realised his blunders. He cooled down himself and went on begging repeated apologies not less then about five times in number and in this way the proceedings of Court No. 35 could not proceed. Even though the time schedule for the Court work was over by 3. 45 p. m. Sri V. C. Mishra had continued. He was then requested by me to see me in my Chambers. Both of us left Court No. 35 and retired to our Cham bers. 21. Even though the time schedule for the Court work was over by 3. 45 p. m. Sri V. C. Mishra had continued. He was then requested by me to see me in my Chambers. Both of us left Court No. 35 and retired to our Cham bers. 21. Sri V. C. Mishra came to my Cham bers at about 4. 10 p. m. , Miss Moonis, learned A. G. A. , Sri Jagdish Tewari, learned Government Advocate and few learned Government lawyers also entered my Chambers. 21. 1. Sri V. C. Mishra once again repeatedly offered his apologies before me. I asked him to remain cool and not to loose temper or to be infuriated telling him that before a Court of Law all are equal and no one can be given any priviledged treatment. He was also en quired as to whether he and his son received a copy of our order dated 24-5-1999. He very politely told that it has not been received as yet. 21. 2. I also made enquiries from the Bench Secretary Sri Sharma as to why the office has not served it. Sri Sharma told me, after enquiry from the office, that it is busy in preparing copies of the order dated 24-5-1999 and of other orders and papers for complying with our directions. 21. 3. Sri V. C. Mishra remained present in my Chambers till about 5. 00 p. m. and so the other learned Government Advocates awaiting receipt of the order. 21. 4. As clock struck 5. 00 p. m. Sri VC. Mishra and other learned Advocates were told that no useful purpose will be served by their presence in my Chambers as it will be the duty of the office to serve copy of the order dated 24-5-1999 on him and his son and on other two learned Government Counsel. Thereafter all learned Advocates dispersed. 22. From perusal of the record day before yesterday we came to know that Sri VC. Mishra had made following endorse ment:- "received a copy though incomplete. V. C. Mishra 25-5-99 at 5. Thereafter all learned Advocates dispersed. 22. From perusal of the record day before yesterday we came to know that Sri VC. Mishra had made following endorse ment:- "received a copy though incomplete. V. C. Mishra 25-5-99 at 5. 30 p. m. It is to be noted that on 24-5-99 at 3 p. m. in Court No. 35 Justice B. K. Roy had given a copy to me for reading the order and asked me to see him in his Chamber and had also called there Sri Jagdish Tewari and Miss Nahid Ara Moonis and Sri Arvind Kumar Tewari/tripathi and per suaded me not to appear in case in personally otherwise I be not able to cross examine proper ly and I shall engage some Advocate to cross-ex amine the contemner who gave statement against me, as if a trial is to take place against me and kept on waiting for about 45 minutes alongwith aforesaid Advocates to give a copy of the order passed, which was ultimately informed that has been sent to serve on me at my residence. V. C. Mishra 25-5-99. " Sri Vivek Mishra was also found to have made following endorsement:- "received a copy though incomplete. Vivek Mishra 25-5-99 at 8. 15 p. m. " 23. Both of us were surprised to find the aforementioned endorsements of the learned Advocates. On query our Bench Secretary Sri Sharma informed that both learned Advocates had received entire copy of the order dated 24-5-1999. Neither Sri VC. Mishra nor was Sri Vivek Mishra were found present before us. Sri J. N. Tewari, learned senior Counsel told us that he has been requested to appear on their behalf. Sri Tewari was told by us as to what was the justification of making of the aforementioned endorsements by the aforementioned Advocates. Sri J. N. Tewari also expressed surprise in that regard though told us that he was aware of making of some endorsements by them. Sri Tewari was requested by both of us that in view of the allegations made by the con-temner against them is fair and proper that both learned Advocates should be present for making any statement which they may consider desirable. 24. Sri Tewari was requested by both of us that in view of the allegations made by the con-temner against them is fair and proper that both learned Advocates should be present for making any statement which they may consider desirable. 24. What happened in Court, which we were holding in our Chambers, stands reflected in our order dated 26-5-1999 reproduced in the order of Brother Jain and does not require my reiteration once again except that both learned Advocate never complained that they had received incomplete order dated 24- 5- 1999; that none of us had given them any impression that any proceeding in contempt was drawn up against them; that their Vakalat-nama was not determined earlier; and that there was no persuasion at all by me in regard to his non-appearance. B. K. Roy and P. K. Jain, JJ.-The Rule issued to Sri Ravindra Singh Nyal, Additional Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad is discharged as we are satisfied with his explanation furnished. 26. We direct the office to serve a X-rox copy of this order of ours on Sri jagdish Tiwari, learned G. A. for a follow up action by the authorities concerned, in course of the day. 27. The police authorities are directed to take away the contemner to serve out the sentences. The period which he had remained in joil shall, however, will be taken into account as having undergone imprisonment. Order accordingly. .