JUDGMENT - DESAI RANJANA (Smt.), J.: - This is a reference made to this Court under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ("the said Act", for short) by the Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) through the District and Sessions Judge, Thane. In this reference, the learned Judge has requested this Court to take action against respondents 1 and 2 i.e. B.K. Gawali, Advocate and Purshottam Vinayak Jage, respectively under the said Act, for having committed criminal contempt. 2. On this reference, notices were issued to the contemners. Pursuant to the notices, the contemners have appeared before this Court through their Advocates and they have filed their replies. Today, in the Court, both the contemners are present. 3. In the reference, the learned Judge has referred to four instances of contemptuous behaviour particularly of respondent 1. First incident is dated 30-8-2002. On that day, the learned Judge had posted Regular Civil Suit No. 21 of 1994 for judgment. Respondent 1 was appearing in that suit for the plaintiff. The learned Judge declared the judgment in the open Court. At that time, respondent 1 was not present in the Court. The learned Judge then started evidence in another suit. Respondent 1 came to the Court and interrupted the work. When the learned Judge told him that his suit was dismissed, he stated ^^Nku] /kU; vkgs-^^ The learned Judge was recording evidence hence, he ignored these remarks. Thereafter, respondent 1 went to the office of the Court and, in the presence of staff members and some litigants, he addressed his client loudly as follows : ^^lkgsckauh dk; fnos ykoysr rs vkj';ke/;sp ¼tTTkesaVe/;sp½ igkrks- rks vkjlkp ojP;k U;k;ky;kr usmzu nk[korks^^ It is stated that these comments were made with a view to creating disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the Court. It was aimed at creating distrust in the mind of respondent 1's client and other litigants about the impartiality and fairness of the learned Judge. Statements of staff members in whose presence respondent 1 passed the above remarks have been sent to us and we have perused them. 4. The second incident is dated 18-9-2002. On that day, the learned Judge's mother was unwell. He had to take her to the doctor. Statements of staff members in whose presence respondent 1 passed the above remarks have been sent to us and we have perused them. 4. The second incident is dated 18-9-2002. On that day, the learned Judge's mother was unwell. He had to take her to the doctor. When he passed through the rear door of the chamber, he heard respondent 1 in the presence of his client and some staff members saying loudly to Mr. Choudhary, the peon that ^^vkEgh brjkalkj[ks feBkbZps iqMs rq>k lkgsckauk nssr ukgh Eg.kwu rs vkeP;kfo:) fudky nsrkr^^- According to the learned Judge, the said act of respondent 1 was a calculated act of defaming him with a view to exciting in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with all his judicial determinations. 5. The third incident had taken place on 2-9-2002 when Regular Darkhast No. 15 of 1989 was posted for hearing. Respondent 1 appeared for respondent 2, who was the obstructionist. Previously, one Advocate Mr. Deodhar had appeared on behalf of the decree holder, but as the decree holder was not regularly attending the matter, he filed no instruction pursis. Before accepting the pursis, Mr. Deodhar was directed to send letter to his client to appear on that day as the compliance was not made by him. Mr. Deodhar was also, present before the Court. When Regular Darkhast No. 15 of 1989 was called on for hearing, the decree holder appealed before the Court along with his Advocate Mr. Sandbhor. Mr. Sandbhor started making submissions. He told the learned Judge that he was appearing in the matter on behalf of the decree holder and was going to file his vakalatnama on that day. At that time, respondent 1 stated that the matter was posted for dismissal order. The learned Judge told him that it was kept for compliance by Advocate Mr. Deodhar and not for dismissal order. Respondent 2 became annoyed and after, seeing the decree holder before the Court, stated that "he was deceived by one Brahmin lady (i.e. judgment debtor) and two Brahim Advocates". At that stage, respondent 1 stood up and said that "all the Brahmins had duped his client". In that matter, the learned Judge had issued possession warrant against respondent 2. Obviously, the learned Judge being a Brahmin, the remarks made by respondent 1 were directed against him. At that stage, respondent 1 stood up and said that "all the Brahmins had duped his client". In that matter, the learned Judge had issued possession warrant against respondent 2. Obviously, the learned Judge being a Brahmin, the remarks made by respondent 1 were directed against him. Those comments, according to the learned Judge, were made with a view to creating disrespect for the authority of the Court in the minds of litigants, by creating distrust in respect of working of the Court. In fact, when Mr. Deodhar protested, respondent 1 arrogantly replied that what wrong did he commit in making such comments. He remarked that he had just reiterated the comments, which were made by his client. The learned Judge has stated that those comments were made with view to creating doubt about the impartiality, integrity and fairness of the learned Judge. 6. The last incident is dated 25-9-2002. On that day, Criminal Case No. 170 of 2000 was fixed for hearing. Respondent 1 was appearing for the complainant to assist the prosecution. Advocate Mr. Pitale had appeared on behalf of the accused. Advocate Pitale had filed a complaint against A.P.P. and respondent 1. Copy of the complaint was given to respondent 1. Respondent 1 had not filed his reply. On 25-9-2002, when the case came up for hearing in the first session, respondent 1 filed application and sought an adjournment. The learned Judge rejected the application by saying that sufficient opportunity was already given to him. Thereafter, prosecution examined the Investigating Officer. In the second session, next date of hearing was to be fixed. There was no mutual agreement between respondent 1 and Mr. Pitale about the next date. At that time, respondent 1 quarrelled with the learned Judge and when the learned Judge gave him warning and reminded him about his indecent behaviour on the earlier occasion, respondent 1 stated that he had not uttered any such words and the learned Judge was purposely harassing him. Thus, according to the learned Judge, respondent 1 and respondent 2 has tried to create an impression in the minds of other litigants staff members and Advocates that in Shahapur Court, discrimination is done on the basis of caste and the learned Judge was obtaining gifts for giving favourable judgments and that his judgments are not impartial and fair. 7. Thus, according to the learned Judge, respondent 1 and respondent 2 has tried to create an impression in the minds of other litigants staff members and Advocates that in Shahapur Court, discrimination is done on the basis of caste and the learned Judge was obtaining gifts for giving favourable judgments and that his judgments are not impartial and fair. 7. The learned Judge then issued notice of contempt dated 25-9-2002 to the respondents, respondent 1 sent a reply tendering apology. Respondent 2 also tendered apology. But the apology tendered by them did not appear to be genuine to the learned Judge. This was confirmed by the fact that thereafter respondent 1 filed transfer petition against the learned Judge making baseless allegations and contemptuous imputations against him. It is against the backdrop of these facts that this reference is made to us. 8. We have heard, at some length, Mr. Solkar, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent 1 and Mr. Warunjikar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 2. We have gone through the replies filed by the respondents. In the replies though, some explanation is given, unconditional apology is tendered. 9. Our attention has been drawn to the decision of this Court in (State of Maharashtra v. B.K. Gawali)1, 1993(IV) C.C.R. 2994(D.B.). From this judgment, it appears that a similar reference was made by the Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shahapur to this Court, under section 15(2) of the said Act in which respondent 1 was the contemner. Respondent 1 was guilty of contemptuous behaviour in that Court. Through his Counsel, respondent 1 tendered unconditional apology to this Court. This Court observed that the unconditional apology was accepted but with a warning that such contemptuous behaviour on the part of the contemner or any other Advocate will not be tolerated. It was further observed that the Advocates are the Officers of the Court and it was the duty of the Advocates to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Court. If the members of the bar fail to maintain the dignity of the Court, then the entire structure of the judiciary will crumble. This Court expressed a hope that a wiser Counsel will prevail. It was further observed that as the contemner had expressed unconditional apology with the assurance not to repeat such performance, the unconditional apology was accepted and the notice was discharged. 10. This Court expressed a hope that a wiser Counsel will prevail. It was further observed that as the contemner had expressed unconditional apology with the assurance not to repeat such performance, the unconditional apology was accepted and the notice was discharged. 10. It is distressing to note that after promising this Court that he will behave himself and maintain the dignity of this Court, respondent 1 has again indulged in contemptuous behaviour. Undoubtedly, the instances noted by the learned Judge in the reference are serious. It is improper for a lawyer to identify himself so/much with his client. His first duty is obviously to the Court. Respondent 1 has lost sight of this. His behaviour must be deprecated. The learned Judge is absolutely right in saying that respondent 1 is guilty of criminal contempt. Mr. Solkar, however, contended that respondent 1 is a disabled person. He submitted that the incident referred to in the reported judgment took place way back in 1989. Thereafter, till 2002, respondent 1 has not misbehaved. Therefore, a kindly view may be taken of the unfortunate incidents which have taken place thereafter. He submitted that respondent 1 is repentant and he promises not to indulge in such behaviour, in future. Mr. Solkar urged that, in the circumstances, his unconditional apology may be accepted and the notice may be discharged. 11. We feel that respondent 1 has, by his conduct, tried to lower the authority of the Court. He has tried to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. His behaviour was such as would obstruct the administration of justice. Ordinarily, such conduct would invite a sentence. But, our attention has been drawn to the order dated 11-11-2003, passed by this Court at the stage of admission of this reference. After admitting the reference, this Court had apprised respondent 1 that as a member of the noble profession, he should realise that a greater responsibility lies on his shoulder and his conduct should be such as would set an example not only to the litigants but also to the junior members entering the bar. Respondent 1 had assured this Court that he would behave himself. On his giving the assurance, this Court had decided to give him a fair opportunity and the reference was listed before the Court after summer vacation of 2004. Respondent 1 had assured this Court that he would behave himself. On his giving the assurance, this Court had decided to give him a fair opportunity and the reference was listed before the Court after summer vacation of 2004. It appears that though the reference was listed, it could not be heard possibly because of the heavy docket of the Court. Respondent 1 has given us a similar assurance today through his Counsel. He is present in the Court and he has personally affirmed that he would not indulge in such behaviour, in future. Considering the order dated 11-11-2003 and the fact that respondent 1 and his Counsel have given assurances to us that respondent 1 would improve his behaviour and would refrain from indulging in such behaviour, in future, we accept his unconditional apology, which appears to us to be bona fide. We feel that rather than sentencing him, he should be asked to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to Kirtikar Library, High Court, Mumbai. This would vindicate the grievance made by the learned Judge. We do not want to be unnecessarily harsh to respondent 1 as he promises to be of good behaviour. We hope and trust that respondent 1 would stick to the assurances given by him to us. 12. So far as respondent 2 is concerned, he has personally tendered unconditional apology to us and assured us that, in future, he will not repeat such behaviour. His Counsel has also tendered unconditional apology to us on his behalf. We find his unconditional apology to be bona fide and we accept the same. 13. In the circumstances, the notices issued to respondents 1 and 2 are discharged. Respondent 1 should pay a sum of Rs 5,000/- to Kirtikar Library, High Court, Mumbai, within a period of four weeks from today. The reference is disposed of in the aforestated terms. Order accordingly. -----