JUDGMENT - ZOTING D.S., J.:---This is a reference under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar against the alleged contemnor Jaikisan Shivram Patil r/o Pimpalner, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule, through the District and Sessions Judge, Dhule. 2. The factual matrix in which this contempt petition arises, in brief, is as under. Three civil suits and one darkhast of Jaikisan Shivram Patil were pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar. Out of them, Special Civil Suit No. 99 of 1990 and Special Civil Suit No. 6 of 1991 were decided by Shri M.P. Choudhary, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar after recording the evidence and hearing arguments of both the parties, by his judgments dated 29-9-2001. Special Civil Suit No. 99 of 1990 was filed against State of Maharashtra, Assistant Conservator of Forests and Range Forest Officer for damages. Likewise, Civil Suit No. 6 of 1991 was filed against the State of Maharashtra. Shri Sonwane, Police Sub-Inspector and Shri Ratanlal Chavan, Police Head Constable. Both the suits filed by Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil were dismissed by the Judge. After dismissal of both the suits, Jaikisan Shivram Patil sent one envelope containing his application to the Judge on 1-10-2001. Thereafter on 26-11-2001, the alleged contemnor had sent one telegram to the Judge informing him that he is going to pay Rs. 1 Lac by cheque. Thereafter on 1-12-2001, the alleged contemnor had submitted one application along with cheque of Rs. 1 Lac issued in the individual name of the Judge. The Judge brought all these matters to the notice of the District Judge, Dhule by sending his confidential letter dated 1-12-2001 i.e. on the same day on which the alleged contemnor filed the said application. The said confidential letter is at Exh. 6. The postal envelope and the applications are at Exhs. 1 and 2. The language used by Jaikisan Shivram Patil in the said applications as well as on the envelope is contemptuous. Therefore, on the basis of the contents of the applications and the language used on the envelope, congnizance was taken by the learned Judge. Accordingly, show cause notice Exh. 3 was served on Jaikisan Shivram Patil. On 1-3-2002, he submitted his say vide Exh. 4. In his say, again he has used contemptuous language. 3. Therefore, on the basis of the contents of the applications and the language used on the envelope, congnizance was taken by the learned Judge. Accordingly, show cause notice Exh. 3 was served on Jaikisan Shivram Patil. On 1-3-2002, he submitted his say vide Exh. 4. In his say, again he has used contemptuous language. 3. The alleged contemnor Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil had affixed the Court fees stamp on these applications. The alleged contemnor wrote the applications in his hand writing in Marathi language. The referring Court has reproduced some excerpts from the applications. The translation of the few excerpts of the contemptuous language used by Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil, in the applications addressed to the Judge, is as under : "1. You have misused your post and by taking recourse of fraud, you have tried to save all the defendants. You are not fit for post of a Judge. 2. I record my protest and I raise my objection to the wrong decision given by you and for your condemnable acts, which may please be noted. Will the cheating, mockery, bogus acts and corruption be stopped? Two cases have been dismissed. Third case should not be decided illegally. You are addicted to very bad habits. I have a right to claim against you. You have not given justice but caused injustice. You are not a Judge who imparts justice, but a Judge doing injustice. Don't give wrong decision in (Case No. ) 49/97. I have apprehension. Your way of imparting justice is false and wrong. You are not deity of justice but of injustice. A pack of wicked rascals-Kulkarni, Jagtap, Kharkar and Choudhary. Remember, this is democracy, not a system of coercion by punishment. It should not be forgotten that for taking revenge of these three Judges, percentage is not given." On the envelope received by the Judge, following words are written : "1. Thief. Sneaking thief, don't poke your nose. Give up wickedness. Do proper justice. 2. Pack of wicked rascals, 'shame', 'shame', 2 x 8 . 3. Except Pokale Saheb, you all-Kulkarni, Jagtap, Kharkar, Choudhary, Judges are not giving justice, but cause injustice. You are corrupt. My offer and challenge." 4. Thief. Sneaking thief, don't poke your nose. Give up wickedness. Do proper justice. 2. Pack of wicked rascals, 'shame', 'shame', 2 x 8 . 3. Except Pokale Saheb, you all-Kulkarni, Jagtap, Kharkar, Choudhary, Judges are not giving justice, but cause injustice. You are corrupt. My offer and challenge." 4. Upon considering the imputations in the said applications as well as on the envelope, the learned Referring Court has formed opinion that the aforesaid contents on the envelope and in the applications sent by Jaikisan Shivram Patil amounts to contempt of the Court. After dismissal of both the suits, Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil did not stop his hazardous activities and lowering down the image of judicial administration. The learned Referring Judge has also noted that Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil offered a cheque of Rs. One lac by way of gift to him, about which the police complaint has already been filed by him. He has also noted that Jaikisan Shivram Patil is in the habit of filing false complaints and previously Additional District Judge, Nandurbar has made reference under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to this Court bearing Contempt Petition No. 6 of 2000. In the said reference, this Court gave warning by order dated 15-1-2001, the copy of which is at Exh. 7, but inspite of such warning, he continued the act of using contemptuous language against the Judicial Officers. This was the background in which the said reference was made to this Court by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar. 5. On the basis of said reference, Criminal Contempt Petition No. 6 of 2002 was registered. 6. Upon considering the imputations in the application and on the envelope, as referred to in the reference under section 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, we were, prima facie, of the opinion that case for initiating proceedings for contempt of Court was made out and, therefore, we directed that appropriate notice be issued calling upon alleged contemnor to show cause as to why he should not be punished vide order dated 17-4-2002. 7. Pursuant to the said notice, issued by this Court on 17-2-2002, Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil appeared before this Court and he stated that he requires legal assistance at the cost of the State Government. 7. Pursuant to the said notice, issued by this Court on 17-2-2002, Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil appeared before this Court and he stated that he requires legal assistance at the cost of the State Government. He had also suggested the name of Shri Sakolkar, Advocate, who had given his consent and we, therefore, appointed Shri Sakolkar as his Counsel at the expenses of Government. 8. We have heard Shri Sakolkar, learned Counsel for the contemnor and Shri Choudhary, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Referring Court. In this Court, the contemnor has filed affidavit-in-reply on 17-6-2002. In the affidavit, the contemnor has submitted that he has received the notice of this Court in the above referred criminal petition along with its annexures and after going through the same and having understood the same, he has filed the affidavit. In his affidavit, he further submits that he is tendering an unconditional apology for the acts and deeds which are subject matter of the present proceeding and that he is unconditionally withdrawing all the words written and used by him against the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar, because of which the reference was made by the said Judge. He further submits that he is feeling extremely sorry for the same. He has expressed his repentance for his act of giving amount of Rs. One lac by cheque to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar, through the Superintendent of the said Court. He stated that whatever he has done and which is now subject matter of this contempt petition, has taken place because of his irritated state of mind. He further submits that he has no intention even remotely to commit any act amounting to contempt of Court and he undertakes that henceforth in future he will not commit any act or deed which will be amounting to contempt of Court. 9. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and on going through the excerpts of the contemptuous language used by Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil in the applications addressed to the Judge as well as written on the envelope, there is no doubt that the language used by the contemnor is offensive, scandalous, disgraceful and malicious. 10. 9. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and on going through the excerpts of the contemptuous language used by Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil in the applications addressed to the Judge as well as written on the envelope, there is no doubt that the language used by the contemnor is offensive, scandalous, disgraceful and malicious. 10. The first question, which arises is whether the alleged contemnor Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil is guilty of the offence of criminal contempt as defined in section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). Section 2(c) of the Act reads as under : "2. ........... (c) "Criminal Contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which- "(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes, or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; ....................." 11. Criminal contempt is thus vivisected into two categories. One is publication of any matter which scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of any Court etc. Second is the doing of any act whatsoever, which scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of any Court etc. etc. If an act is not a criminal contempt merely because there was no publication such act would automatically fall within the purview of the other category because the latter consists of "the doing of any other act whatsoever". The latter category is thus a residuary category so wide enough from which no act of criminal contempt can possibly escape. The common denominator for both is that it scandalises or tends to scandalise etc. etc. of any Court. 12. A perusal of the said provision would show that if a person scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court through publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise), he would be guilty of the offence of criminal contempt. 13. of any Court. 12. A perusal of the said provision would show that if a person scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court through publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise), he would be guilty of the offence of criminal contempt. 13. We make no bones in observing that the allegations made by the contemnor in his both applications addressed to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar, which in terms are that the judgments passed by the learned Judge were passed on extraneous considerations, undoubtedly, scandalises, tends to scandalise, lowers and tends to lower the dignity of the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar. 14. Further we make no bones in observing that in his applications and on the envelope, language used by the contemnor is abusive, offensive, scandalous, indecent and intimidating the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar. Not only this, but in the reply by him before the said Judge, in pursuance of notice issued by the learned Judge against him to show cause why action should not be initiated against him under the Contempt of Courts Act, he had used similar type of indecent, scandalous language. Thus the language used by the contemnor in the applications, on the envelope and in the reply, undoubtedly scandalises, tends to scandalise, lowers and tends to lower the dignity of Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar. Therefore, Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil would be guilty of the offence of criminal contempt under section 2(c) of the Act. The contemnor's act of giving amount of Rs. one Lac by cheque on 1-12-2001 to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar for seeking result of his third suit in his favour, also amounts to an act which falls within the purview of other category consisting, "doing any other act whatsoever", the latter category is thus residuary category, so wide enough, from which no act of criminal contempt can possibly escape and as such the said act also amounts to contempt of Court under section 2(c) of the said Act. We, therefore, hold Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil guilty for his having committed the offence of criminal contempt as defined by section 2(c) of the Act. 15. The question with which we are left, is quantum of the punishment, which should be imposed on the contemnor. We, therefore, hold Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil guilty for his having committed the offence of criminal contempt as defined by section 2(c) of the Act. 15. The question with which we are left, is quantum of the punishment, which should be imposed on the contemnor. Section 12 of the Act provides that : "(1) ....... a Contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both : Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court. Explanation.—An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide." A perusal of the said provision would show that a person guilty of Contempt of Court may be punished in the following manner : (a) with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months; or (b) with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees; or (c) with both. It would also show that it would be open to the Court to discharge the accused or remit the punishment awarded to him on apology being made to its satisfaction and that an apology would not be merely rejected on the ground that it is qualified on conditional, provided it is bona fide. 16. The learned Counsel for the contemnor strenuously urged that in view of the repentance expressed by the contemnor in his affidavit, the ends of justice would be justified if the unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor is accepted and the notice issued against him is discharged. We have reflected over the submissions made by the learned Counsel and make no bones in observing that we are not inclined to accept the same. It should be borne in mind that the majesty of law has to be maintained and it has to be ensured that the faith of the common man in courts has to be sustained. We have reflected over the submissions made by the learned Counsel and make no bones in observing that we are not inclined to accept the same. It should be borne in mind that the majesty of law has to be maintained and it has to be ensured that the faith of the common man in courts has to be sustained. If a soft view is taken in cases, such as the instant, where, per se, contumacious statements are made by a loosing party in a litigation, who in this case is the plaintiff, who is expected to respect the majesty of law and the dignity of Court, and such statements are thoughtlessly made and faith of the common man in the judiciary would be eroded and that indeed, would be distressing. It is, on account of this reason, we are not prepared to accept the unconditional apology setforth by the contemnor in his affidavit. 17. The question is, whether in the instant case, the sentence of imprisonment or sentence of fine or both would meet the ends of justice. It is true, as we have seen earlier that section 12 of the said Act, gives an option to the Court to choose from any of the aforesaid three sentences, but we are of the firm view that the sentence of imprisonment should be restricted to the cases wherein the contumacious act is, per se, so gross and reprehensible that a sentence of fine would be wholly disproportionate to its gravity. 18. It is to be noted that though the contemnor, in his affidavit filed before this Court at para 2 has stated that neither in the past nor otherwise, nor even now, nor hereafterwards, he has or will have any intention to indulge in any act or deed amounting to Contempt of Court, but that does not appear correct. 19. It is pertinent to note that previously, Criminal Contempt Petition No. 6 of 2000 was initiated against him on the reference under section 15(2) of the Act, by Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, District Nandurbar, as he made wide allegations against the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar, in Criminal Revision Application No. 17 of 1999 and this Court had issued notice against him, as this Court prima facie, satisfied that Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil committed contempt of Court. In the said contempt petition, the present contemnor had specifically withdrawn the sentences, because of which reference was made by the Subordinate Court, and, therefore, the apology tendered by him had been accepted by this Court and the contempt proceedings initiated against him under the Act were dropped. However, this Court has warned the contemnor that thenceforth in his pending litigation before the subordinate courts or any other Court, he should take appropriate care to use proper language and not to indulge in using such contumacious language. The said order was passed by this Court on 12-12-2000 in the said Contempt Petition No. 6 of 2000. Despite of such warning, again the contemnor used abusive, offensive, scandalous, indecent language against the named Judges in the applications, not only in one application, but in the second application, as well as on the envelope also and lastly in his reply filed by him before the Judge. Under such circumstances, we find that there appears no real feeling of repentance in the contemnor. 20. All the courts function for the noble cause of dispensing justice. Since they have to decide the litigation between two contesting parties, they have to have full freedom and independence in settling the litigation. It is desirable that the Presiding Officers, who run the courts and conduct the proceedings therein have to act fearlessly. Any action on the part of any person or litigant or lawyer, which tends to interfere or obstruct the process of justice, has to be deprecated. If the litigant starts threatening the Judge or starts making wild allegations against him, the judicial independence would be vanished. It would also be in violation of statutory protection available to the Judges and the Magistrates under Judicial Officers (Protection) Act, as also the Judges (Protection) Act. 21. In our view, bearing in mind the averments in the applications, on the envelope and in the reply, the instant case does warrant action of imposing sentence of imprisonment only on the contemnor. The majesty of law and the dignity of the courts would be maintained, if he is sentenced, in the manner stated in the next paragraph. 22. 21. In our view, bearing in mind the averments in the applications, on the envelope and in the reply, the instant case does warrant action of imposing sentence of imprisonment only on the contemnor. The majesty of law and the dignity of the courts would be maintained, if he is sentenced, in the manner stated in the next paragraph. 22. In the result, we find Shri Jaikisan Shivram Patil guilty of the offence of the criminal contempt, as defined in section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and, therefore, we convict him for the aforesaid offence and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for one month. He shall be taken into custody forthwith. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. -----