Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. On 22nd July 2003 the Registrar General was reporting to the High Court that a scene had taken place at the District Judgeship of Saharsa and the court proceedings had come to a grinding halt. 2. The District Judge Saharsa sent two reports to the Patna High Court on 22nd July 2003. As these reports are the events which took place and have been reported about by no other person than the District Judge himself, it is best to reproduce these reports rather than the court giving facts on the basis of the reports. The first report of the District Judge is number 26/Confidential. It is accompanied by a report which he had received from the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, Sri Arbind Kumar Thakur. The first report of the District Judge no. 26 is reproduced: "I am forwarding herewith a report of Shri Arvind Kumar Thakur, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa sent to me vide his letter No. 48 dated 22-7-2003 with a request that the same may be placed before the Honble Court for information as also for necessary action. In the above context, I may be permitted to mention that I was sitting in court and was hearing a witness when some of the advocates came inside my court and informed me about the incident that the Assistant Public Prosecutor working in the court of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa had abused and assaulted the Presiding Officer of the Court on account of being directed not to put an irrelevant question to a witness who had not supported the prosecution case. I was further informed by the advocates that the Assistant Public Prosecutor shouted in his court in defiance and, thus, acted in a manner which was in derogation of the authority and the dignity of the court and these acts of the Assistant Public Prosecutor was in the view of the advocates and the general public. The situation was so volatile that all the courts stopped working here at about 1 p.m. on account of the advocates and general public rushing towards the court room of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. The Judge-incharge took the Assistant Public Prosecutor, noted above, into his own chamber otherwise he would have been assaulted by general public and subsequently he was escorted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who was on duty in the Court-Hajat. The Judge-incharge took the Assistant Public Prosecutor, noted above, into his own chamber otherwise he would have been assaulted by general public and subsequently he was escorted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who was on duty in the Court-Hajat. So far as the action of the Assistant Public Prosecutor is concerned he threw his shoe at the Presiding Officer also. I was forced by the advocates to come out of the court and I went to the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate to personally inquire about the incident as told to me by the advocates and I found the story and incident true. The acts of the Assistant Public Prosecutor appears clearly acts of disrespect to the institution of Judiciary and it is also an attack on its independence. It further appears to be an attack on the entire system of the administration of Justice and exhibits a behaviour of an employee of the State on whose behalf he was appearing in the court and exhibits uncivility and disrespect towards the court of law as also it is challenging the authority of courts and at the same time it is trampling the dignity of the court. In the above view I may be permitted to submit that the acts as reported and found are simply contemptuous. I, therefore, forward this report with these comments of mine for the kind perusal of the Honble Court and as also for necessary action." 3. This report was accompanied by a report from the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa of the events which took place in the latters court. This report is in Hindi. This is also reproduced: 4. Thereafter, the District Judge sent another report also on 22nd July 2003 after making due inquiries on what exactly had happened in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa. This report is no. 26 A/Confidential of the same date. This report is also reproduced: "In continuation of my confidential letter No. 26 dated 22.7.2003, I am to state that the Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri Suresh Prasad on being over ruled by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa for putting irrelevant questions blurred the following expressions of abuse, "Aap jyada Kabilmat baniye, ham Aap ko didha denge. Aap murkh hai, kanun kuchh nahi jante hai aur hakimi dikhate hai. Aap murkh hai, kanun kuchh nahi jante hai aur hakimi dikhate hai. Ham aap ki hakimi ghusar denge, etc." Thereafter, he in expression of great rage, put off his shoes and hurled it at the Presiding Officer Sri A.K. Thakur, S.D.J.M., Saharsa while he was in the process of recording the evidence of RW. 1 in G.R. case No. 218/99. I request that this information may also be placed before the Honble Court." 5. It was on the basis of these two reports that the court drew up proceedings on 23rd July 2003. The order of 23rd July is reproduced: "Learned Advocate General, Bihar, has appeared and submitted that this is a serious matter and a fit case on which notice should be issued and charges should be framed upon the report which has been submitted by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, whose report in turn has been forwarded by the District Judge, Saharsa. Learned Advocate General has also brought to the notice of the Court that this morning a report bearing Memo No. 257 dated 22.7.2003 has been submitted by the District Magistrate, Saharsa to the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. At present, the court is not going into this report of the District Magistrate, Saharsa. Upon submissions by learned Advocate General, Bihar, the Court is also of the opinion that a motion be issued to be served upon Sri Suresh Prasad, APR Saharsa, to appear before the court next week, on 30 July, 2003, with the following charge: "Whereas you on 22 July 2003 in due course of examination of a witness before the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa used unsavoury language attacking the Presiding Officer and, thereafter, by signs and visible representation scandalized tha court; took off your shoes and hurled it at the Judge with intent of lowering the authority of the court; interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings and further interfered with and obstructed the administration of justice." SHOW CAUSE as to why you should not be proceeded with for criminal contempt under the contempt of Courst Act, 1971 and considered for due punishment as the law so provides. Mr. Amarnath Singh, S.C.8, instructing the Advocate General will receive a notice and transmit it to the District Magistrate, Saharsa for effecting service upon Sri Suresh Prasad, APR Saharsa and thereafter file a compliance report before the Registrar General, Patna High Court. Mr. Amarnath Singh, S.C.8, instructing the Advocate General will receive a notice and transmit it to the District Magistrate, Saharsa for effecting service upon Sri Suresh Prasad, APR Saharsa and thereafter file a compliance report before the Registrar General, Patna High Court. Put up on Wednesday next (30.7.2003) in the supplementary list." 6. The aforesaid is the order of the court framing charges to be answered by the contemnor. 7. The matter was listed on 30 July 2003. The contemnor appeared through the counsel as are mentioned in the proceedings of that day (Messrs. Ramchandra Jha, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Bhola Prasad). On that day the contemnor denied the charge. On that day the contemnor had also made a request that he would like to see the report of the District Judge and such other reports as were received by the High Court. In any case, the contemnor was entitled to see the record on the basis of which a motion was issued to him and a charge had been framed. The court supplied copies of these reports as also all the papers to the contemnor. 8. As indicated in the order of 30 July 2003, the case was listed on 8 August 2003. The contemnor having pleaded not guilty to the charge took his defence. The defence was placed on record. With a charge of not guilty and a defence on record the matter was put to trial. Today was the day for trial. 9. As the proceedings began three counsel engaged by the contemnor withdrew from the case. It needs to be noted that whereas two had been engaged by the contemnor earlier as it was indicated to the court, a third counsel was also engaged. The contemnor had the assistance of one Senior Advocate and two assisting counsel, all withdrew.These were Mr. Ram Chandra Jha, Senior Advocate, Mr. Bhola Prasad and Mr, Birendra Kumar Srivastava. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bam Chandra Jha made his statement to the effect that as the contemnor had his affidavit drafted by some other counsel without reference to him and he had already indicated to the contemnor three days earlier that he would not be appearing for him and, thus, he has withdrawn along with his two instructing counsel. 10. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bam Chandra Jha made his statement to the effect that as the contemnor had his affidavit drafted by some other counsel without reference to him and he had already indicated to the contemnor three days earlier that he would not be appearing for him and, thus, he has withdrawn along with his two instructing counsel. 10. It is not for the court to ask the counsei why they withdrew and nor it is appropriate for the court to ask the contemnor who stands trial on what may have happened that his counsel have withdrawn. Suffice it to say, whatever explanation counsel indicated to the court, the court could not deny permission to withdraw from the case. It is a matter between the contemnor and the counsel who had been engaged. 11. The record which now remains is basically on two broad aspects (a) the contemnor was belligerent with the court and abused the court and (b) he had hurled a shoe at the court. 12. Though not placed on record by the contemnor and this information was within his special knowledge a submission was made that he had filed a First Information Report against the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, and had it registered through his peon by sending it on a dispatch register to the police station concerned. The First Information Report has not been filed with the defence. It is stated that he had also reported to the District Magistrate. What the contemnor had reported to the District Magistrate has also not been appended with the defence either. The contemnor had all the opportunities to do so but for whatever reasons best known to him he kept away this record. 13. The court has based its decision of today only on the basis of the reports which came as fresh as on the day of the incident itself and the defence of the contemnor as he submitted. 14. The other explanation which was taken by the contemnor is, to the effect, that he had indicated to the Press on what his version was. This he had done, according to him, the next day. But what the contemnor may have indicated to the press cannot become his evidence. 15. The contemnor also mentioned as a reiteration of the defence taken in his affidavit that he has obtained affidavits of some persons in his defence. This he had done, according to him, the next day. But what the contemnor may have indicated to the press cannot become his evidence. 15. The contemnor also mentioned as a reiteration of the defence taken in his affidavit that he has obtained affidavits of some persons in his defence. The contemnor should have named the persons whose affidavits he has obtained and filed the affidavit along with his defence. But like the First Information Report and his report to the District Magistrate, the contemnor did not file these papers with his defence. He said his lawyers did not include what he asked them to include in his defence. He submitted that he was seeking adjournment because he was under the presumption that the proceedings would be dropped. The contemnor could not explain which set of lawyers declined to incorporate what he desired in his defence. The set of lawyers which withdrew from case? Or the other set who drafted his defence which was the reason for the first set to withdraw. 16. The only defence of the contemnor, thus, remains is on aspects which even he accepts. It is the defence of the contemnor that he was asking repeated questions from a witness who had turned hostile and the Presiding Officer restrained him from putting repeated questions. The contemnor accepts that a trial judge may intervene in a case should a witness be badgered. It is not unknown that a prosecution witness may turn hostile. From the contemners version it is clear that he was browbeating the witness. The point cannot be stretched beyond a certain stage and there is no harm if the Presiding Officer told the contemnor to get on with the trial and leave the issue on the question which he was putting repeatedly, because at one stage such an exercise would be one in futility. It was the defence of the contemnor that the Presiding Officer was repeatedly telling him that his question was irrelevant. The issue is not whether the question was relevant or irrelevant. The contemnor accepts as a public prosecutor that he was asking a question repeatedly and nothing was coming out from the witness who in any case had turned hostile. The contemnor is reminded that he is an Assistant Public Prosecutor by profession. The issue is not whether the question was relevant or irrelevant. The contemnor accepts as a public prosecutor that he was asking a question repeatedly and nothing was coming out from the witness who in any case had turned hostile. The contemnor is reminded that he is an Assistant Public Prosecutor by profession. He must know what the substantive law of the land permits a court to ask a question and the Court may even ask an irrelevant question and both the pleader and the parties are obliged to answer the question. This is section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1860. The law obliges a court to monitor a trial. It is not unknown if the question is repeated again and again to a badgered witness the judge may caution the pleader to stop the exercise, otherwise, he may be in contempt. 17. The District Judge reports that while he was in session of his court the lawyers of the Judgeship had in any case come into his court to report on the incident which had taken place a few moments ago with abuses hurled at the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate followed by further belligerence of a shoe thrown by the public prosecutor on the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer also submits a similar report. These are the events of 22nd July 2003. Fresh as the reports were the District Judge recorded what was reported to him immediately as also the commotion which he had heard while he himself was in Court. This was reiterated by the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, and another report of the District Judge. All the reports had been made out and even reported to the High Court within a matter of hours. 18. Throughout in his defence, whether in his affidavit dated 7 August 2003 or in his submission the contemnor does not explain why he did not report the matter to the District Judge if he had an allegation against the court on any serious judicial impropriety. The contemnor could have met the District Judge and given a formal complaint. 18. Throughout in his defence, whether in his affidavit dated 7 August 2003 or in his submission the contemnor does not explain why he did not report the matter to the District Judge if he had an allegation against the court on any serious judicial impropriety. The contemnor could have met the District Judge and given a formal complaint. This he did not do (he could have sought transfer of the trial depending upon the seriousness of the allegation against the court he did not do this either) instead he went to his office wrote out a first information report and had it posted on the dispatch book and asked his Chaprasi (a peon) to file a first information report at the police station against the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. This is what the contemnor says himself. Thereafter he says he wrote to the District Magistrate. Why did he not write to the District Judge if he could file a First Information Report and represent to the District Magistrate? 19. Now the defence of the contemnor in addition to what he took in his affidavit. He submitted in arguments that he told the press that no such incident had happened. But what the contemnor told the press it was the next day. The incident is of 22 July. The contemnor went to the press on July 23. Now he was playing to the gallery, and that also the next day. The contemnor submitted that he told the press that if the shoe had been hurled at the Presiding Judge it would have been there as evidence, but he was wearing the shoe and the evidence was on his foot. The contemnor was attempting to explain to the court that he should have been left with one shoe and other was with the court. The argument itself is contemptuous. In vernacular it is even more contemptuous. 20. The court does not know what the contemnor wrote in his First Information Report against the Presiding Officer. The court does not know what the contemnor reported to the District Magistrate against the Presiding Officer. This information was otherwise in the hands of the contemnor and he chose not to disclose it to the court. He was given an opportunity to take his defence and he took it knowingly when he was represented by a team of counsel including a senior advocate. This information was otherwise in the hands of the contemnor and he chose not to disclose it to the court. He was given an opportunity to take his defence and he took it knowingly when he was represented by a team of counsel including a senior advocate. The contemnor entered a plea of not guilty. When the contemnor was required to answer the charge he filed an affidavit on whatever submissions he made in it. But, on the filing of this affidavit his counsel withdrew. The court had no reason to disbelieve the report which has been sent by the District Judge and by the Presiding Officer which was recorded on the same day. The District Judge has reported, first hand on the basis of reports of the members of the Bar who moved his attention immediately on the incident which had taken place in the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrates court room. 21. The Advocate General replied to the submissions of the contemnor. 22. The Advocate General submitted that he is aware of whatever the contemnor wrote in the so-called First Information Report. But, as this is the paper of the contemnor, the latter should be placing it before the Court. In the same light the contemnor should have placed on record what he wrote to the District Magistrate. The Advocate General submitted that no matter how difficult the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate may have been as the contemnor says, there was no occasion to shout at the court, abuse the court and assault the court by throwing a shoe at the court. If this is encouraged, the Advocate General submitted, the public justice system would judge in fear and collapse. The Advocate General referred to the observations of the Supreme Court, in the context of the matter, as made in paragraph 43 in re the matter of Delhi Judicial Service Association V/s. State of Gujrat, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2176. "The power to punish contempt is vested in the Judges not for their personal protection only, but for the protection of public justice, whose interest requires that decency and decorum is preserved in Courts of Justice. "The power to punish contempt is vested in the Judges not for their personal protection only, but for the protection of public justice, whose interest requires that decency and decorum is preserved in Courts of Justice. Those who have to discharge duty in a Court of Justice are protected by the law, and shielded in the discharge of their duties, any deliberate interference with the discharge of such duties either in Court or outside the Court by attacking the presiding officers of the Court would amount to criminal contempt and the Courts must take serious cognizance of such conduct." 23. In this regard the Advocate General submitted that the contemnor being a public prosecutor himself was probably encouraged to file a First Information Report against the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate like the police had done against the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the Nadiad case in re Delhi Judicial Service Association (supra). Indirectly, the Advocate General submitted, the contemnor is attempting to tell the High Court that there will be an investigation on the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate on the contemnors First Information Report. This, Advocate General submitted, is an engineering learnt from arguments made by the police in the Nadiad case before the Supreme Court. The Advocate General contended that he fails to understand why the contemnor will not place whatever he wrote to the police station and the District Magistrate instead of some subsequently obtained affidavits which he did not file with the show cause affidavit in any case. Further, the Advocate General submitted that in his show cause the contemnor has not alleged any bias against judge before whom he was cross-examining a witness. In the absence of bias whatever happened in Court is available in the report of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate to the District Judge and the two reports of the District Judge to the High Court, all three reports are dated on the day of the incident within a matter of hours. 24. The contemnor had no answer to the submissions made by the Advocate General. In the present matter the observation of the Supreme Court in D.C. Saxena V/s. Honble the Chief Justice of India, AIR 1996 S.C. 2481 is very pertinent. 24. The contemnor had no answer to the submissions made by the Advocate General. In the present matter the observation of the Supreme Court in D.C. Saxena V/s. Honble the Chief Justice of India, AIR 1996 S.C. 2481 is very pertinent. This observations are reproduced: "As pointed out earlier, the repeated assertions of the petitioner that he has no personal gain in the litigation and was actuated by public duty and laid the petitions, bear no relevance or a defence. It is already held that in a contempt proceedings, the motive, in other words, the mens rea is not relevant. What would be the effect of the act or conduct or imputation is the relevant question for decision. It is true that in an indictable offence under penal law generally mens rea is an essential ingredient and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove it affirmatively. In a contempt proceedings of summary nature, the proof of mens rea is absolutely unnecessary. What is material is the effect or the tendency of the act, conduct or the publication of the words, written, spoken or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise and whether it scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of the Court or prejudices or tends to prejudice or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. The tendency due to the publication, whether by words-written or spoken or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever is relevant and material." 25. This contemnor has no respect for the court where he is a public prosecutor. The court is not concerned whether the State has taken out a departmental proceeding against him. That is entirely another matter. The contemnor Suresh Prasad @ Suresh Kumar has no reservations nor remorse nor regret on how he treated the court where he pleads. He took his position, but the court is afraid that he could not rebut the report which was submitted by the District Judge as also the Presiding Officer (Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate). 26. Belligerence with a court system which must function in peace and cannot defend itself cannot be accepted nor permitted to become a habit. He took his position, but the court is afraid that he could not rebut the report which was submitted by the District Judge as also the Presiding Officer (Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate). 26. Belligerence with a court system which must function in peace and cannot defend itself cannot be accepted nor permitted to become a habit. Let this be a warning to anybody whether public prosecutor or defence lawyer that pleadings and submissions in a court are to be addressed in humility and modesty. The judgment may be wrong. It may be appealed against. But there is no occasion to abuse a judge much less throw a shoe. The court is afraid that the contemnor played to the gallery with a cheeky defence that the evidence was not in the lap of the court and is on his foot. 27. Logically and dispassionately the court ought to sentence him with the maximum punishment and the maximum fine. The only thing which weighed with the court is that the public prosecutor himself states that he is in financially straitened circumstances and with a family. The court is afraid that the contemnor cannot be letoff. The court finds him guilty. Thus, punishes him to a simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) to be paid with the Registrar General within one month, in default of which further one month simple imprisonment. He should be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. 28. The court further records that should the contemnor desire to file an appeal in terms of sub clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 19, then he may apply and satisfy the High Court that he intends to file an appeal in terms of sub-section (3). 29. Consigned.