ORDER : We have heard Mr. Dhingra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at length. This is a gross case where the appellant, an Inspector of Police, has committed contempt of court by first abusing a Magistrate outside the court premises and thereafter intentionally chased the Magistrate in a white Maruti car when the Magistrate was proceeding on a scooter, abused him and even sought to assault him. 2. The High Court has, in a very detailed order, summarised the evidence and the material on record. The High Court has correctly come to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of criminal contempt. We see no substance in the submission that the principles of natural justice were not followed as the appellant was not allowed by the enquiry officer to be represented by a lawyer. In an enquiry of this nature, it is not necessary that parties be allowed to be represented by advocates. We also see no substance in this submission that documents were not looked into by the enquiry officer. The appellant was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. He tendered documents and even led evidence in support of his case. He had been accorded full opportunity. He could have personally given to the enquiry officer the documents, if he felt they were important. If he failed to do so he has only himself to blame. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere. In fact, the nature of the contempt is such that, in our view, the sentence is too lenient. However, as no notice for enhancement of sentence has been issued, we do not propose to now enhance the sentence. 3. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.