JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - The District and Sessions Judge, Hisar vide his communication dated 7.2.2002 has forwarded a reference by Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Hisar, regarding conduct of Sh. S.L. Sardana, Advocate in his court on 6.2.2002. The reference reads as under :- "I have the honour to submit that petition bearing No. 22 of 2000 was taken up by the undersigned today at around 1.45 p.m. The petition was fixed for evidence of the petitioner and cross-examination of the petitioner Prem Parkash was to be recorded. On the last date of hearing, some record was called from the petitioner by the respondents. The learned Counsel for the respondents Sh. S.L. Sardana, Advocate put one question, which was reduced into writing by the Reader Sh. Vijay Kumar on the instructions and dictation of the undersigned, and thereafter the learned Counsel Sh. Sardana asked the Reader in a very high tone to read to him the question put by him. On this the undersigned told the learned Counsel to be in normal tone and not to threaten the Reader. On this, the learned Counsel Sh. S.L. Sardana got angry and started levelling allegations against the undersigned. When the undersigned asked him as to what was the matter, he started shouting in high tone that he be called in Chamber and then he would tell the undersigned about his deeds. He also uttered in high tone that there were several spots on his face and the undersigned should look into the mirror and then would find those spots. These allegations amount to Criminal Contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. At that time Sh. S.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Prem Parkash, petitioner in- person, Sh. R.S. Jain, Sh. Naveen Jain counsel for the respondents alongwith Sh. Sardana were also present besides the officials of the Court." 2. This Court took cognizance of the communication as prima facie disclosing Criminal Contempt and issued notice to the respondent-contemner. The respondent-contemner has filed an affidavit dated 26.8.2002 wherein it is deposed that the version given in the complaint is not a correct version. The respondent-contemner has not made any allegations against the learned Civil Judge. It has been stated that in fact learned Civil Judge insulted the respondent-contemner without any cogent reasons. The respondent-contemner has filed an affidavit dated 26.8.2002 wherein it is deposed that the version given in the complaint is not a correct version. The respondent-contemner has not made any allegations against the learned Civil Judge. It has been stated that in fact learned Civil Judge insulted the respondent-contemner without any cogent reasons. Respondent-contemner has also stated that the learned Presiding Officer was not in the chair when the Reader asked the respondent-contemner to begin the cross-examination of Prem Parkash at about 2.00 p.m. and on expressing desire by the respondent- contemner to wait for the Presiding Officer, the Reader went to the retiring room and Presiding Officer came out to retiring room. It is mentioned that the Presiding Officer asked the respondent is a very angry and threatening tone as to why respondent-contemner was not cooperating with the Reader of the Court in cross-examination of the witnesses. The respondent-contemner submitted explanation that cross-examination of the witnesses could not be recorded in the absence of the Presiding Officer of the Court keeping in view the nature of the case. The respondent-contemner has stated that even though the Presiding Officer was subsequently sitting in the Court room yet cross- examination was being recorded by the Reader. The respondent-contemner in order to ensure whether reply of witness was recorded asked the Reader as to what was written and on repeating the same by respondent-contemner, the Presiding Officer lost temper beyond reasonable limit and began to hurl abuses to the respondent-contemner. This burst of intemperate language had the effect of ridiculing the respondent-contemner in open Court in the presence of a number of litigants and lawyers. However, the respondent-contemner has admitted in his affidavit that he asked the learned Presiding Officer to look at himself in a mirror before levelling allegations against other. Para 1(iii) of the affidavit reads as under :- "Inspite of grave provocation offered to the answering respondent by Shri Sanjeev Kumar and the insult heaped upon him, the answering respondent did not retaliate and only submitted with humility that the learned Presiding Officer should look at himself in a mirror before levelling allegations against others." We have heard Sh. R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate, for the respondent-contemner and gone through the records of the case. 3. Shri Mittal has argued that in fact contempt has been committed by the Presiding Officer and not by the respondent. R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate, for the respondent-contemner and gone through the records of the case. 3. Shri Mittal has argued that in fact contempt has been committed by the Presiding Officer and not by the respondent. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defines Criminal Contempt which reads as under :- "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 tend to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner." 4. These provisions of law have come for interpretation by the Apex Court in the context of allegation of criminal contempt alleged to have been committed by an Advocate before the Court. 4. In Smt. Harbans Kaur v. P.C. Chaturvedi, 1969(3) Supreme Court Cases 712 where Supreme Court dealing with contempt has held that counsel pleading the case of a person charged with the commission of an offence is entitled to present the evidence on the record in the best light possible and for that purpose to argue that the complainant and the witnesses are unreliable. But counsel does not enjoy absolute privilege when acting the course of his professional duties. He will not be justified in making a personal attack upon the complainant or witnesses on matters not borne out by the record, nor in using language which is abusive or obscene or in making obscene or vulgar gestures in Court. The dignity of the Court must be maintained, however serious the charge made against the party for whom he is appearing. Counsel has no privilege because for the person for whom he is appearing is charged with a serious offence, to descend to the level of appearing to support has view in a vulgar brawl. 5. Similarly, in M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1834 where the lawyer made disparaging remarks regarding character and derogatory to dignity of Judges. 5. Similarly, in M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1834 where the lawyer made disparaging remarks regarding character and derogatory to dignity of Judges. The Honble Supreme Court held that the remarks disparaging in character and derogatory to dignity would vitally shake the confidence of the public and the aspersions made by the Advocate had the effect of scandalising the Court in such a way to create distrust in peoples mind and impair confidence of the people in Court. 6. In K.D. Mohammed Ali v. C.N. Prasannan, 1994 Supp.(3) Supreme Court Cases 509, the Supreme Court had dealt with the appeal filed by the Advocate under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act for having committed the contempt of the Court of a learned Magistrate before whom he was conducting a trial for an accused person. One of the charges against the appellant was that he at a certain juncture raised the pitch of his voice unusually high to the annoyance of the learned Magistrate and besides he had used derogatory language against him. Learned lawyer apologized before the Honble Supreme Court for his misbehaviour. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of after admonishing the Advocate for his conduct. 7. Subsequently, in In Re v. Ajay Kumar Pandey, 1996(6) Supreme Court Cases 510 the Honble Supreme Court held that an advocate, as a citizen of the country has the fundamental right of freedom of expression and speech under Aritlce 19 of the Constitution. Apart from that, the legal profession has the inherent right to express itself in the best manner possible in uninhibited language but the right to express also carries with it the duty to be dignified in the use of expression and to maintain decorum and peace in the court proceedings. Reference may be made to para 32 of the case :- "An advocate, as a citizen of this country, has the fundamental right of freedom of expression and speech under Article 19 of the Constitution. This right is also guaranteed to him under the Advocates Act. Apart from that, the legal profession has the inherent right to express itself in the best manner possible in uninhibited language, but the right to express also carries with it the duty to be dignified in the use of expression and to maintain decorum and peace in the court proceedings." 8. Apart from that, the legal profession has the inherent right to express itself in the best manner possible in uninhibited language, but the right to express also carries with it the duty to be dignified in the use of expression and to maintain decorum and peace in the court proceedings." 8. Earlier in Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Honble the Chief Justice of India, 1996(5) SCC 216 the Supreme Court has upheld the freedom of expression as one of the basic conditions for the progress of advocacy and for the development of every man including legal fraternity practising the profession of law. But the Advocate equally owe countervailing duty to maintain dignity, decorum and order in the court proceedings or the judicial process. The Honble Supreme Court in the said case concluded :- "Scandalising the court, therefore, would mean hostile criticism of judges as judges or judiciary. Any personal attack upon a judge in connection with the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory publication concerning the judge as a judge brings the court or judges into contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on the majesty of justice. Any caricature of a judge calculated to lower the dignity of the court would destroy, undermine or tend to undermine public confidence in the administrative of justice or the majesty of justice. It would, therefore, be scandalising the judge as a judge, in other words, imputing partiality, corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge is scandalisation of the Court and would be contempt of the Court. Even imputation of lack of impartiality or fairness to a judge in the discharge of his official duties amounts to contempt. The gravamen of the offence is that of lowering his dignity or authority or an affront to the majesty of justice. When the contemner challenges the authority of the court, he interferes with the performance of duties of judges office or judicial process or administration of justice or generation or production of tendency bringing the judge or judiciary into contempt." 9. Thus, we are of the opinion that the language used by the respondent that the Presiding Officer should look at himself in a mirror is contemptuous and not keeping with the dignity, decorum, peace and order in the Court proceedings. 10. Thus, we are of the opinion that the language used by the respondent that the Presiding Officer should look at himself in a mirror is contemptuous and not keeping with the dignity, decorum, peace and order in the Court proceedings. 10. The counsel for the respondent further argued that since the respondent is denying the incident in the manner reported by the Judicial Officer, therefore, the matter should be investigated granting opportunity to cross- examine the Presiding Officer. It is also contended that it would be necessary to hold an inquiry into the allegations made by the learned Judge to verify the contemnor. 11. The precise question came for decision before the Honble Supreme Court in reference of In Re : Vinay Chandra Mishra v. ..., 1995(2) Supreme Court Cases 584 . It was held by the Honble Supreme Court that in facie curiae contempts, there is no scope for examining the Judge or the Judges of the court before whom the contempt is committed. Reference may be made to para 27 of the case which reads as under :- "In the present case, although the contempt is in the face of the court, the procedure adopted is not only summary but has adequately safeguarded the contemners interests. The contemner was issued a notice intimating him the specific allegations against him. He was given an opportunity to counter the allegations by filing his counter-affidavit and additional counter/supplementary affidavit as per his request, and he has filed the same. He was also given an opportunity to file an affidavit of any other person that he chose or to produce any other material in his defence, which he has not done. However, in the affidavit which he has filed he has requested for an examination of the learned Judge. We have at length dealt with the nature of in facie curiae contempt and the justification for adopting summary procedure and punishing the offender on the spot. In such procedure, there is no scope for examining the Judge or Judges of the Court before whom the contempt is committed. To give such a right to the contemner is to destroy not only the raison detre for taking action for contempt committed in the face of the Court but also to destroy the very jurisdiction of the Court to adopt proceedings for such conduct. To give such a right to the contemner is to destroy not only the raison detre for taking action for contempt committed in the face of the Court but also to destroy the very jurisdiction of the Court to adopt proceedings for such conduct. It is for these reasons that neither the common law nor the statute law countenances the claim of the offender for examination of the Judge or Judges before whom the contempt is committed. Section 14 of our Act, i.e. the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deals with the procedure when the action is taken for the contempt in the face of the Supreme Court and the High Court. Sub-section (3) of the said Section deals with a situation where in facie curiae contempt is tried by a Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed. The provisions in specific terms and for obvious reasons, states that in such cases it shall not be necessary for the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been committed, to appear as a witness and the statement placed before the Chief Justice shall be treated as the evidence in the case. The statement of the learned Judge has already been furnished to the contemner and he has a reply to the same. We have, therefore, to proceed by treating the statement of the learned Judge and the affidavits filed by the contemner and the reply given by the learned Judge to the said affidavits, as evidence in the case. 12. In fact reference has been made by the Court when compelled to do so. The language used, the tone and the manner in which it is said shows disrespect and insult overawe of the Court. The language was of threat or obstruction to the course of justice. It may be pointed out that the said judgement deal with the contempt as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act but the facts remain that the proceedings under the Code are summary in nature and therefore, it does not contemplate trial of an offence. 13. In addition thereto, the respondent has admitted the utterance which have been alleged to be contemptuous. Therefore, it will be unnecessary exercise go to into the background or the justification of such utterance made by the respondent. 14. 13. In addition thereto, the respondent has admitted the utterance which have been alleged to be contemptuous. Therefore, it will be unnecessary exercise go to into the background or the justification of such utterance made by the respondent. 14. The further reliance by the learned Counsel for the respondent-contemner is to the case of Muhammad Shaf, Advocate v. Coudhary Qadir Baksh, Magistrate Ist Class, Lahore, AIR 1949(36) Lahore 270. The said judgment is of no help to the respondent. In the said case, an ad interim injunction was issued by the civil Court restraining the party not to continue with the proceedings. When the Court was informed of such injunction, the Magistrate lost temper and made remarks against sub-Judge who has granted injunction. The Full Bench in those circumstances held that no judge has to lose his temper in Court of law. The said judgment does not deal with the contempt of Advocate before the Court. Therefore, the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the fact that the respondent has uttered disparaging remarks in the Court which interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings and lowers the authority of Courts, amounts to criminal contempt. We, therefore, held respondent guilty of criminal contempt. R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - 15. Vide our separate order dated September 2, 2002, respondent Shri S.L. Sardana, Advocate, Hisar has been convicted under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He has been heard on the quantum of sentence. The respondent states that he is an old man of 81 years and has standing of 46 years at the Bar. He has been a freedom fighter having suffered imprisonments during the British regime in Multan and Rawalpindi Jails during the freedom struggle in 1940-41. He further submitted that he may be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence. 16. We have considered the submissions raised by respondent Shri S.L. Sardana through his senior advocate. He should have shown maturity of mind towards law. He totally forgot that he owes some responsibility in maintaining the magnanimity of law. His conduct was non-excusable. So much so, even before the High Court he did not show any remorse. 16. We have considered the submissions raised by respondent Shri S.L. Sardana through his senior advocate. He should have shown maturity of mind towards law. He totally forgot that he owes some responsibility in maintaining the magnanimity of law. His conduct was non-excusable. So much so, even before the High Court he did not show any remorse. He wanted to justify his contemptuous role, still keeping in view the fact that he is an old man of 81 years and that he has a standing of 46 years at the Bar, we sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment "till the rising of the court" and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three days. 17. At this juncture, Shri R.S. Mittal, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contemner, has submitted before us that the sentence imposed upon Shri S.L. Sardana may be suspended for the time being as he intends to file an appeal before the Honble Supreme Court. He has also furnished an affidavit on record. We are satisfied that the respondent will file an appeal before the Honble Supreme Court. Therefore, we suspend his sentence for a period of two months and in the meanwhile, respondent would obtain the necessary stay order from the Honble Supreme Court, failing which he shall surrender before this Court to suffer the sentence on 12th November, 2002, to which date the proceedings stand adjourned. Order accordingly.