ORDER On the ides of March, 1999 a shocking episode happened in the chambers of the District and Sessions Judge, Azamgarh (U.P.). The learned Judge pronounced judgment in a murder case and retired to his chambers. Five Advocates led by one Mr. Swaminath Yadav, senior among them lost their temper at the verdict rendered by the Judge, gate-crashed into his chambers, hurled abusive and threatening epithets at him, not satisfied with it they neared the Judge and caught hold of his neck. Thereafter they snatched away the judgment from the custody of the Judge as the said judgment was then in the custody of the Reader for the Court. The matter was reported by the Sessions Judge to the High Court of Allahabad, immediately proceedings have been initiated by the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 215 of the Constitution besides Contempt of Courts Act. It is unnecessary to narrate the details of the proceedings which ensued thereafter. A Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment held all the five delinquent Advocates guilty of criminal contempt and convicted them and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for one month plus a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. Out of the above said five persons, three of them including the senior, Swaminath Yadav, have chosen to abide by the verdict passed on them. The two appellants have filed this appeal in challenge of the aforesaid punishment and sentence imposed on them. 3. At the time when this appeal came up for argument learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that he is confining only to amelioration of the sentence imposed on the appellants as the appellants have already undergone imprisonment for a period of 15 days. He has also reminded us of the initial order passed by this Court at the time of suspending the impugned order that the appellants shall not assume practice at the Bar until the disposal of this appeal. 4. We do not find any good reason for making a hiatus as between the three Advocates who have chosen to abide by the verdict passed by the High Court and the two appellants before us for the purpose of showing special leniency to the appellants. 4. We do not find any good reason for making a hiatus as between the three Advocates who have chosen to abide by the verdict passed by the High Court and the two appellants before us for the purpose of showing special leniency to the appellants. Though it is superfluous, we may add that the observations made in the impugned judgment shall not prejudice any defence which the appellants may adopt in the trial which they may have to face as we are told that they are facing a prosecution also. With the said observation the appeals are disposed of. Appeals disposed of ***************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Prabodh Yadav & Anr. v. State of U.P., 2001(5) Supreme 336 : 2001 (3) Crimes 343 00019