JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Singh, J.—This reference has come to initiate the proceeding of Criminal Contempt against the contemnor Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate ( Registration No. U.P. 5011 of 1992, Civil Court, Mainpuri, on the basis of the report dated 8.10.2004 of Sri S.C. Savita, C.J.M. Mainpuri, made to the Registrar General, High Court Allahabad through the District Judge, Mainpuri. The report dated 8.10.2004 of Sri S.C. Savita, C.J.M. Mainpuri reads as under : “From, The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri. To, The Registrar General Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Through The District Judge, Mainpuri No. Subject: Motion for Contempt of Court against Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate ( Registration No. 5011/92) Sir, Humbly, it is submitted that on 25.9.2004, in the after-noon at about 1.10 PM when the undersigned was hearing arguments in Criminal Case No. 3926 of 1998, State v. Devesh Kumar and others, P.S. Kotwali Mainpuri, Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate appeared and causing obstruction in the Court proceedings, asked for immediate disposal of his application purporting to have been moved under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. He was advised to wait for a short while and that after argument in the above is concluded, all the miscellaneous applications, including his own application, would be put up by the Clerk concerned for hearing and orders. But Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan Advocate insisted for disposal of his application then and there, and when advised to wait and keep quiet in the meanwhile, he became much angry and started uttering uncalled for words. The utterance as could be heard by me were reduced in writing in the order sheet of the aforesaid Criminal Case. Part of those utterance is reproduced below : “MAINE TERE TATHA TERE TAMAM MAGISTRATE KI PRATI LIKHIT SHIKAYATEN KI HAIN, TERE ZILA JUDGE KI BHI SHIKAYAT KI HAI, TERA ZILA JUDGE MERE SHIKAYAT PER GHAR BAITH GAYA HAI, TOO IS LIYA MERA YAH PRARTHANA PATRA NISTARIT NAHIN KAR RAHA HAI, SAALE. NAUAA TERI AUKAT NAHIN HAI, TOO MERA PRARTHANA PATRA JAN BUJHKAR TAKE UP NAHI KAR RAHA HAI.” 2. The entire words which he spoke were reduced in writing in the order sheet of the aforesaid Criminal Case and a copy of the same is being enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-1. 3. At the time of incident, Sri Dalvir Singh Yadav, Sri Deepak Dixit, Sri Mohd. The entire words which he spoke were reduced in writing in the order sheet of the aforesaid Criminal Case and a copy of the same is being enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-1. 3. At the time of incident, Sri Dalvir Singh Yadav, Sri Deepak Dixit, Sri Mohd. Ahmad Hussain, Sri Rakesh Soti, Sri Rajesh Yadav, Sri Jag Mohan Dwivedi, Sri Sageer Ahmad, Advocates and amongst the Court-staff Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, Reader Shyam Babu Clerk, Sri Meghnath and Sri Ram Singh, orderly/Peons, A.P.O. S.K. Singh Yadav, Court Moharrir, Constable Bani Singh and Constable Santosh were also present. 4. Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan Advocate, outraging dignity and decorum of the Court, created not only nuisance but also terror and fear in the minds of the Staff as well as litigants present there. He committed misconduct by hurling filthy language and using abusive words like, "Saale” and “Naua”(Caste name) etc. He virtually attempted to scandalize by hurling abuses and extending threats in such a loud voice that some litigants, lawyers and even PAC personnel had also arrived inside and near the Courtroom. He not only created terror, havoc and nuisance inside the Court room but also, when he was taken out of the Courtroom by two young Lawyers, shouted slogans and threatened to harm me also by making complaints to the Hon’ble High Court as well as to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. The above nuisance and terror was created and hooliganism was done by the aforesaid Advocate, because he wants to create fear in the minds of the Judicial Officers and the Staff and also to put pressure on them to act as per his convenience and to pass orders and judgments in his favour whenever he demands for it. This type of practice he has been doing since long. 6. I may further submit that every person, may be an official, a Judicial Officer or lawyer and even police personnel, is adversely affected by his unruly behaviours and misconduct. The Mainpuri Bar Association passed a resolution on 27.9.2004 (the following working day, 26-9-2004 being Sunday) and thereby condemned the misconduct of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate. A copy of the resolution dated 27.9.2004 at Mainpuri Bar Association is enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-2. 7. The Mainpuri Bar Association passed a resolution on 27.9.2004 (the following working day, 26-9-2004 being Sunday) and thereby condemned the misconduct of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate. A copy of the resolution dated 27.9.2004 at Mainpuri Bar Association is enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-2. 7. The brother officer were also shocked and hurt when they heard the above incident and they also passed a resolution on 27.9.2004, condemning the above unwarranted and unruly conduct of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, Chauhan, Advocate. A copy of the resolution passed by the Judicial Officer of Mainpuri Judgeship is also enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-3. 8. I may also submit that Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate, was an accused in Criminal Case No. 334 of 2002 (Crime No. 139 of 1989) State v. Chandra Prakash Singh, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, I.P.C. P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri and in which 26.9.2002, was a date fixed when Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan Advocate came in that Court-room and demanded, from the Reader, the file of that case for perusal. The file was handed over to him by the Reader. But while perusing that file, he managed to hand over the same to some of his men and after a few minutes when the Reader demanded that file back, he not only refused to return the file but also said that no file was given to him. On the report of the Reader, the then District Judge had directed that a criminal case be got registered against Sri Chandra Prakash Chauhan, Advocate. Accordingly, a criminal case at crime No. 1437 of 2002 P.S. Kotwali Mainpuri under Section 406, 379, 201, I.P.C. was got registered and after investigation charge-sheet under Sections 380,406 l.P.C. was submitted against him. The bail application of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan Advocate in that case was rejected by the Magistrate concerned and thereafter also by the then Sessions Judge on 4.10.2002. A copy of the bail order passed by the then Sessions Judge is also enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-4. A perusal of this bail order and also the charge-sheet submitted in the said case reveals that Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan Advocate has a criminal history and background. A copy of the bail order passed by the then Sessions Judge is also enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-4. A perusal of this bail order and also the charge-sheet submitted in the said case reveals that Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan Advocate has a criminal history and background. It also comes out that he had picked the pocket of a client in this very campus of this Judgeship and was apprehended on the spot by Advocate, was taken to the Bar Association, where he was beaten and the money was recovered from his possession. Seven Criminal Cases were pending against him as noted in the charge-sheet and also in the said order dated 4.10.2002 (Annexure-4). 9. Due to his misconduct, he was expelled from the Mainpuri Bar Association as is also clear from the resolution of Mainpuri Bar Association dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure-3). 10. I may further submit that the misbehayiour of the above Advocate was so daring, abnormal and indecorous that the same was also published in the newspaper in the next morning i.e. on 26.9.2004. A Photostat copy of the press report ‘published in Dainik Jagran, Mainpuri, on 26.9.2004 is also enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-5. 11. I may also submit that last year in the months of May, Sixteen Lawyers of this district had committed gross misconduct in the Court-room of the then District Judge. On submission of report by the District Judge to the Hon’ble High Court, contempt proceedings were drawn against those Sixteen Lawyers, who tendered unconditional apology which was accepted by the Hon’ble Court and they were severely warned for future and it was further directed that their conduct shall be under supervision of the District Judge, Mainpuri for a period of two years. The Hon’ble Court had also directed that in case they commit any act against the dignity of the Court, necessary action shall be taken against them. A copy of the order dated 24.7.2003 of the Hon’ble High Court is enclosed herewith for kind perusal, marked Annexure-6. The name of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Advocate is not included in those 16 Lawyers but his gross misconduct and a long criminal activities as submitted above go to establish that he is in the habit of terrorizing the Court Staff and also the Judicial Officer through his intentional and violent activities as already submitted above. The name of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Advocate is not included in those 16 Lawyers but his gross misconduct and a long criminal activities as submitted above go to establish that he is in the habit of terrorizing the Court Staff and also the Judicial Officer through his intentional and violent activities as already submitted above. Sir, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court, 2003 (46) ACC 568, and the Full Bench of Hon’ble High Court, in its Criminal Contempt Case No. 25 of 1999, 2003(46) ACC 546 In Re Sri Shitla Prasad Misra and 223 others Advocates, have condemned such type of hooliganism of the Advocate, within the precincts of any judgeship in U.P. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be moved to approve taking of motion against the said Lawyer Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan. Yours Faithfully, Sd/- Illegible 8.10.2004 (S.C. Savita) C.J.M. Ends: As above. Mainpuri. Copy submitted to the P.S. to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Tiwari, Hon’ble The Administrative Judge of Mainpuri Judgeship, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, for placing the same before His Lordship for kind approval at His Lordship’s convenience. Sd/- Illegible 8.10.2004 (S.C. Savita) C.J.M. Mainpuri Mainpuri Judgeship No. 1255/1 Dated 12.10.2004 Forwarded. Sd/\ Illegible (Ram Kishore) District Judge, Mainpuri.” 12. On the basis of the aforesaid report of Sri S.C. Savita, C.J.M. Mainpuri, forwarded by the District Judge, Mainpuri on 12.10.2004, the Section Officer Contempt submitted a note dated 30.10.2004 which read as under : “O.S.D. (Contempt) May kindly see endorsement letter No. 1255/I, dated 12.10.2004 of the District Judge, Mainpuri forwarding therewith letter dated 8.10.2004 of Sri S.C. Savita, C.J.M. Mainpuri about initiating contempt proceedings against Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Mainpuri. The Hon’ble Administrative Judge- Mainpuri has been pleased to make endorsement on the margin of the letter preferred to above as under : “R.G. Fur necessary action.” 13. The officer Sri S.C. Savita in his letter dated 8.10.2004 above has stated that on 25.9.2004 while he was hearing arguments in Criminal Case No. 3926 of 1998, State v. Devesh Kumar and others, Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate appeared and caused obstruction in the Court proceedings saying that immediate disposal of his application purporting to have been moved under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. be done. On this he was advised to wait for a short-while and that after argument in the above case is concluded. But Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate insisted for disposal of his application then and there when he was again advised to wait and keep quiet in the meanwhile, he became annoyed and started shouting uncalled for words. He further says that the utterances as could be heard by him were reduced in writing in the order sheet of the aforesaid Criminal Case. Part of those utterance is reproduced by him are as under : “MAINE TERE TATHA TERE TAMAM MAGISTRATE KI PRATI LIKHIT SHIKAYATEN KI HAIN, TERE ZILA JUDGE KI BHI SHIKAYAT KI HAI, TERA ZILA JUDGE MERE SHIKAYAT PER GHAR BAITH GAYA HAI TOO IS LIYA MERA YAH PRARTHANA PATRA NISTARIT NAHIN KAR RAHA HAI, SAALE, NAUAA TERI AUKAT NAHIN HAI TOO MERA PRARTHANA PATRA JAN BUJHKAR TAKE UP NAHI KAR RAHA HAI.” 14. The officer has further stated that at the time of incident, a number of advocates, litigants and some staff were present there. 15. The officer also states that Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan Advocate, outraging dignity and decorum of the Court, created not only nuisance but also terror and fear in the minds of the Staff as well as litigants present there. As such he committed misconduct by hurling filthy language and using abusive words like, “SAALE” and “NAUA”(Caste name) etc. virtually attempted to scandalize by hurling abuses and extending threats in such a loud voice that some litigants, lawyers and even PAC personnel had also arrived inside and near the Court room. He not only created terror, havoc and nuisance inside the Court room but also when he was taken out of the Court-room by two young Lawyers, shouted slogans and threatened to harm me also by making complaints to the Hon’ble High Court as well as to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. It has been further stated the above nuisance and terror was created and hooliganism was done by the aforesaid Advocate as he wanted to create fear in the minds of the Judicial Officers and the Staff and also to put pressure on them to act as per his convenience and to pass orders and judgments in his favour whenever he demands for it. This type of practice he has been doing since long. This type of practice he has been doing since long. The office also mentions that the Mainpuri Bar Association passed resolution whereby condemned the misconduct of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Adv. The brother officer were also shocked and hurt when they heard the above incident and they also passed a resolution on 27.9.2004, condemning the above unwarranted and unruly conduct of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Adv. 17. The officer has also submitted that Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, was an accused in Crl. Case No. 334 of 2002 (Crime No. 139 of 1989) State v. Chandra Prakash Singh, pending in the Court of J.M.I. Mainpuri came to the said Court on hearing day and demanded the file of that case for perusal and while perusing the same he handed over the file to one of his men. On making demand of the said file he not only refused to return but also told that no such file was given to him. Thereafter on report of the Reader a criminal case was got registered against Sri Chandra Prakash Chauhan, Adv. And after investigation charge-sheet was filed and later on the bail applications of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan were rejected by the Magistrate concerned and also Sessions Judge. The officer mentions that a perusal of the bail order and also the charge-sheet reveals that he (Adv.) has a criminal history and background. He even once picked the pocket of a client in the Court’s campus and presently seven criminal cases are pending against him as per the charge-sheet. Due to his misconduct, he was expelled from the Mainpuri Bar Association. The misbehaviour of the above Advocate was so daring, abnormal and indecorous that the same was also published in the newspaper in the next morning i.e. on 26.9.2004. 18. It has also been submitted by the officer that last year Sixteen Lawyers of Mainpuri judgeship had committed gross misconduct in the Courtroom of the then District Judge and contempt proceedings were drawn against them. Thereafter they had to tender unconditional apology before the Hon’ble Court and they were severely warned for future and it was further directed that their conduct shall be under supervision of the District Judge, Mainpuri for a period of two years and if they commit any act against the dignity of the Court, necessary action shall be taken against them. Thereafter they had to tender unconditional apology before the Hon’ble Court and they were severely warned for future and it was further directed that their conduct shall be under supervision of the District Judge, Mainpuri for a period of two years and if they commit any act against the dignity of the Court, necessary action shall be taken against them. However, as per the letter the name of Sri Chauhan, Advocate was not included in those 16 Lawyers but his gross misconduct and a long criminal activities establishes that he is in the habit of terrorising the Court Staff and also the Judicial Officer through his intentional and violent activities. 19. Request has been made for taking of motion against the aforesaid lawyer Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Adv. 20. In this connection it may be submitted that provisions as contained in Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is relevant to mention here is as under : "2(c) “Criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which : (i) scandalise or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or (ii) prejudice, or interferes or tends to interfere with due course of any judicial proceedings; or (iii) interfere or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; Submitted for kind perusal and orders. Sd/- Illegible. 30.10.04" 21. After the note dated 30.10.2004 submitted by Section Officer concerned the matter was placed before the Registrar General, High Court Allahabad by in-charge O.S.D.(Computer) on 2.11.2004.Thereafter the Registrar General placed the matter before the Hon’ble the Administrative Judge. The note dated 2.11.2004 reads as under : “Registrar General This present application for initiating the Contempt proceedings against Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, Advocate, has been moved by Sri S.C. Savita, C.J.M. Mainpuri. It is alleged that the officer Sri S.C. Savita was hearing arguments in Criminal Case No. 3926 of 1998 State v. Devesh Kumar and others, on 25.9.2004. In the meantime Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate appeared in the Court and caused obstruction in the proceedings saying that his application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. be heard first. It is alleged that the officer Sri S.C. Savita was hearing arguments in Criminal Case No. 3926 of 1998 State v. Devesh Kumar and others, on 25.9.2004. In the meantime Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate appeared in the Court and caused obstruction in the proceedings saying that his application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. be heard first. The Presiding Officer tried to cool down the alleged contemner, but Sri Chandra Prakash Chauhan insisted for disposal of his application then and there. The Presiding Officer advised him to wait, but he became much annoyed and started shouting. Part of those utterance has been reproduced by him as under : “MAINE TERE TATHA TERE TAMAM MAGISTRATE KI PRATI LIKHIT SHIKAYATEN KI HAIN, TERE ZILA JUDGE KI BHI SHIKAYAT KI HAI, TERA ZILA JUDGE MERE SHIKAYAT PER GHAR BAITH GAYA HAI, TOO IS LIYA MERA YAH PRARTHANA PATRA NISTARIT NAHIN KAR RAHA HAI, SAALE. NAUAA TERI AUKAT NAHIN HAI, TOO MERA PRARTHANA PATRA JAN BUJHKAR TAKE UP NAHI KAR RAHA HAI.” (C) “Criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which : (iv) scandalize or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or (v) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings; or (vi) interfere or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; Under Sec. 10 of the above Act, only the High Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance in respect of contempt of Courts, subordinate to it. Section 20 of the Act provides one year, from the date of which contempt is alleged to have been committed as period of limitation, which in present case would expire on 25.9.2005. From the perusal of above provisions it is certain that above alleged actions of Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate is covered within the meaning of “Contempt of Court”. Moreover the matter is not time barred and also cognizable by Hon’ble High Court only. May kindly place the file before the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice for His Lordship’s kind perusal and orders. Sd/-. Illegible (Mohd. Babar) O.S.D. (Computers) 2.11.2004" 22. Moreover the matter is not time barred and also cognizable by Hon’ble High Court only. May kindly place the file before the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice for His Lordship’s kind perusal and orders. Sd/-. Illegible (Mohd. Babar) O.S.D. (Computers) 2.11.2004" 22. The Hon’ble Administrative Judge examined the matter and passed the forwarding note which read as under : “Registrar General During my last visit to Mainpuri in October, 2004 I was informed by officers and staff members of the Judgeship that Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate is habitual in outraging the dignity and decorum of Court. He not only creates nuisance but also terrorize the staff members and litigants. Therefore, in my opinion, stringent action against such an Advocate is need of the hour. Since High Court has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of contempt of its subordinate Courts, necessary criminal contempt proceedings be drawn against Sri Chandra Prakash Singh on the basis of allegations contained in the application of Sri S.C. Savita, C.J.M. Mainpuri. Sd/- Illegible (Justice Rakesh Tiwari) Administrative Judge, Mainpuri.” 23. Thereafter the matter was placed before the acting Chief Justice who ordered that the matter be laid before the appropriate Bench. Thereafter the matter was placed before the appropriate bench of this Court who passed the following order : Hon’ble S.R. AIam, J. Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J. Issue notice to Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate (Registration No. 501/92) Civil Court, Mainpuri to show cause as to why a proceedings for criminal contempt be not initiated against him. Rule is made returnable within six weeks. 22.12.2004 SkS/23/04" 24. The contemnor Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate received notice sent by this Court and filed an affidavit in the Court on 4.8.2005 in reply of the allegations made against him in the reference of this case stating in its paragraph 3 that since the contemnor was making repeated complaints to Hon’ble The High Court and Hon’ble The Supreme Court against the C.J.M. perhaps the real happening was concealed and a concocted version has been brought out. It has been mentioned in paragraph 5 of this affidavit that the filthy words put in the mouth of the contemnor never uttered by him. He was merely complaining that the misbehaviour was done with him. It has been mentioned in paragraph 5 of this affidavit that the filthy words put in the mouth of the contemnor never uttered by him. He was merely complaining that the misbehaviour was done with him. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit it has been stated by the contemnor that so far as the resolution passed by the Mainpuri Bar Association is concerned, it may be stated that the resolution appears to be almost a dictated resolution. So far as the resolution passed by the brother Judicial Officer is concerned, it is only a resolution that matter may be referred to the Hon’ble the High Court for taking action against the contemnor. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit it has been stated by the contemnor that so far as the case noted in the order by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri are concerned it may be stated that almost all the cases are pending for long and are not proceedings while the contemnor wants and making efforts that they may be proceeded so that he may prove himself to be innocent and it is stated in paragraph 14 of the affidavit that, however, it may be said that the alleged contemnor had never any intention to commit the contempt of Court. He has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive and in paragraph 15 of the affidavit it is stated that, however, the contemnor is judicially discipline advocate and since there was no intention to commit any contempt if this Hon’ble Court reaches to a conclusion that the contemnor is guilty of contempt, the contemnor tenders unqualified apology with folded hand that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept the unconditional apology and exonerate the humble advocate and the alleged contemnor. The contemnor has taken the plea of denial and before giving reply of the allegations made against him he stated certain facts in paragraph 2 of his affidavit. Paragraph 2 of the affidavit reads as under : 25. That before giving reply certain facts may be stated as under : (i) That the contemner aforesaid had made an application in case No. 3221 of 2004, State v. Dhunchi, under Sections 452, 323 I.P.C., P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri asking a question as to whether the papers relating to Bail were on record or not. That before giving reply certain facts may be stated as under : (i) That the contemner aforesaid had made an application in case No. 3221 of 2004, State v. Dhunchi, under Sections 452, 323 I.P.C., P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri asking a question as to whether the papers relating to Bail were on record or not. Several documents in the file were missing due to the irresponsibility of the Court clerk Radhey Shyam Yadav. The contemner was the complainant in the aforesaid case. The office of the Court gave a false report that the case was pending. This reply had nothing to do with the question asked. Photostat copy of the application for information with reply dated 23.9.2004 is being annexed herewith as Annexure C.A. 1 to this counter affidavit. (ii) That the contemner made an application on 25.9.2004 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri that the record is not traceable and therefore, Court may be pleased to pass an order for lodging an FIR in this respect. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri heard the matter and told that orders shall be passed after some time. The contemner thereafter was called in chamber by the Chief Judicial Magistrate where the contemner was maltreated, slapped on his face, abused him on the pretext that he had made the complaint against Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri to Hon’ble The High Court and Hon’ble The Supreme Court both and that body can do anything against him. The contemner had to bear with it. (iii) That the Contemner then went to the Telegraph office made an application and informed of the fact to this Hon’ble Court and Apex Court. True copy of the said application dated 25.9.2004 is being annexed herewith as Annexure CA-II to this counter affidavit. (iv) That later on the matter was transferred to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate I. It was then transferred to Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II passed the order that since no cognizable offence was made out if the record of the case is not traceable therefore the application was dismissed. True copy of the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Mainpuri is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-III. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II passed the order that since no cognizable offence was made out if the record of the case is not traceable therefore the application was dismissed. True copy of the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Mainpuri is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-III. (v) That it may be stated that if the things as stated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate had happened in his Court he could have taken the action immediately and would not waited till 16th October, 2004 i.e. about 20 days thereafter to make the present complaint. (vi) That the narration of facts sent for enquiry by the Contemner annexed as Annexure CA-II to this Counter Affidavit would be more reliable. (vii) That in Criminal Case No. 1437/2002 the charge sheet was missing for last about 12 years. When the Contemner made the complaint, matter was enquired into and one Anil Saxena was held guilty. True copy of the order passed in preliminary enquiry No. 26/200 dated 19.7.2001 is being annexed herewith as Annexure CA-IV to this counter affidavit. (viii) That since even other documents than the charge-sheet were missing, therefore contemner was accused in that case made an application for discharge. The contemner was trying to trace out the missing papers in the file, so he was to make further complaints but to avoid such a complaint as FIR was lodged to the effect that the contemner took away the file. The matter are still pending. The contemner was sent to jail. The Bail application was dismissed by the Magistrate. However, learned Sessions Judge, allowed it. True copy of the complaint made by Mahabir Prasad dated 26.9.2002 is being Annexed herewith as Annexure CA-V to this counter affidavit. (ix) That on 27.9.2004 the contemner sent application to Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court in which he had stated that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was threatening that the Contemner should take his complaint back otherwise he shall be proceeded with contempt in this Hon’ble Court. True copy of the complaint dated 27.9.2004 to Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure CA-VI to this counter affidavit. Similarly on 27.9.2004 the application was made to Hon’ble The Chief Justice of this Hon’ble High Court. True copy of the complaint dated 27.9.2004 to Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court is being annexed herewith as Annexure CA-VI to this counter affidavit. Similarly on 27.9.2004 the application was made to Hon’ble The Chief Justice of this Hon’ble High Court. True copy of the application dated 27.9.2004 is being annexed herewith as Annexure No.CA VII to this counter Affidavit. (x) That the contemner had made several applications against office of Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding loss of records of several cases and has also criticized him on various other scores. This may be the reason for Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed against the Contemner. (xi) That the case of Chandra Prakash v. Shiv Pratap, Contemner made an application under Section 410, Cr.P.C. for transfer of the matter but the application was dismissed. However, the case was kept in Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate itself. Thus it appears that the case was withdrawn from Court of Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and is to be tried by Chief Judicial Magistrate. True copy of the order dated 22.7.2004 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-VIII to this Counter Affidavit. (xii) That in case No. 19/1998 Chandra Prakash v. Officials in Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contemner made an application that the bail bonds were forged and later on they have been misplaced and they were not available on record. The enquiry in this respect is pending for last three years. Thereafter Contemner made an application under Section 156(3) against the accused which was dismissed. True copy of the order dated 4.2.2004 is being annexed herewith as Annexure CA-IX to this counter affidavit. The application against the sureties for prosecuting has been dismissed. True copy of the order dated 7.4.2004 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure CA-X to this counter affidavit. (xiii) That application No. 149/2003 was made by the contemner Under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C, the application was posted for another date which was said to be for hearing but word hearing was scored of. Contemner made a complaint to the Sessions Judge that entire records were missing. The Sessions Judge set up an enquiry No. 2/2004 which was merely kept pending. The Contemner then made the complaint to this Hon’ble Court on 4.9.2004 on which the action was taken and charge was framed against three employees and the enquiry is pending with Additional Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge set up an enquiry No. 2/2004 which was merely kept pending. The Contemner then made the complaint to this Hon’ble Court on 4.9.2004 on which the action was taken and charge was framed against three employees and the enquiry is pending with Additional Sessions Judge. True copy of the order dated 22.7.2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate is being annexed herewith as Annexure CA-XI to this counter affidavit. True copy of the application made by Contemner to this Hon’ble Court dated 4.9.2004 is being annexed herewith as Annexure CA-XII to this counter affidavit. (xiv) That a case No. 138/1989 Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 342 IPC P.S. Bewar is pending which has not been committed for a long time. Even the witnesses have died. It was clearly with ulterior motive. (xv) That V.S. Yadav, Advocate is facing Criminal Case being case No. 138/189 under various sections for a double murder. The charge sheet has been filed in 1998. However, Chief Judicial Magistrate has not committed case to Court of Sessions and is pending till date. (xvi) That V.S. Yadav, Advocate is also an accused in Crime case No. 319/2003 under Section 307, IPC. (xvii) That V.S. Yadav, Advocate along with others is an accused in Crime Case No. 220/2003 and 221/2003 under Section 25/30 Arms Act. (xviii)That the Contemner had made complaints against Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29.7.2004 and 12.8.2004 to this Hon’ble Court. True copies for complaint dated 29.7.2004 and 12.8.2004 are being annexed herewith as Annexure CA-XIII and CA XIV respectively to this counter affidavit. Contemner had made complaints on 29.7.2004 and 31.7.2004 to Hon’ble The Supreme Court. True copies of the complaints dated 29.7.2004 and 31.7.2004 are being annexed herewith as Annexures CA-XV and CA XVI respectively to this counter affidavit. (xix) That the contemner wanted report of Senior Account Officer on 1.7.2004, in case of Chandra Prakash v. Concerned Court Employee, but the application was dismissed on the ground that the copy cannot be given being against Rule 263 of General Rules Civil. True copy of the order dated 1.7.2004 is being annexed herewith as Annexure XVII to this counter affidavit.” 26. True copy of the order dated 1.7.2004 is being annexed herewith as Annexure XVII to this counter affidavit.” 26. The contemnor along with his Counsel Sri A.S. Diwakar appeared before this Court on 6.9.2005 and on the basis of the instructions given by the contemnor his Counsel Sri Diwakar made statement before the Court that the contemnor is ready to tender unqualified apology before the Presiding Officer Sri S.C. Savita, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri. Therefore, this Court passed an order dated 6.9.2006 which reads as under : “Hon’ble V.M. Sahai, J. Hon’ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J. The contemnor Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan is present in Court. Sri A.S. Diwaker, Counsel for the contemnor on the instructions received from him has made a statement before us that the contemnor is ready to tender unqualified apology before the Presiding Officer Sri S.C. Savita, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri. He shall do so within a period of three weeks. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall also submit his report to this Court as to whether the contemner has tendered unqualified apology before him or not? List on 29th September, 2005 for framing of charge. On that date the contemner shall again appear in the Court. Date 6.9.2005 LJ/23/04" 27. The report of the C.J.M. dated 20.9.2005 shows that the contemnor Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan did not appear before the Court of learned C.J.M. Mainpuri to tender his apology as undertaken by him before this Court on 6.9.2005 but he sent a registered letter to the C.J.M. Mainpuri tendering apology. The document of tendering apology is an affidavit of the deponent Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate. The affidavit dated 7.2.2005 sent by the contemnor read as under : “In the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Bench No. 29 Contempt Petition No. 23 of 2004 S.C. Savita Versus Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan Advocate, Mainpuri Affidavit on behalf of Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate Civil Court, Mainpuri. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly swears and affirm on oath as under : (1) That I am hereby tendering my sincere regrets and unconditional apology for the happening taken place on 25.9.04 in your honours Court before your good self. (2) That I had and have always great respect for the judicial Courts including your Honour’s Court. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly swears and affirm on oath as under : (1) That I am hereby tendering my sincere regrets and unconditional apology for the happening taken place on 25.9.04 in your honours Court before your good self. (2) That I had and have always great respect for the judicial Courts including your Honour’s Court. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly swears and affirm on oath that the statement contained in para 1 and 2 are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge. Nothing has been tried to be concealed. So help me God.” 28. The contemnor Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate filed second affidavit on 24.9.2005 before this Court. This affidavit contained four paragraphs. Paragraph 1 is that the deponent is the respondent contemnor in the aforesaid case and is fully acquainted with the facts deposed to below. Paragraphs 2,3 and 4 reads as under : “2. That, as directed by this Hon’ble Court on 6.9.2005 petitioner was to tender unconditional apology to the applicant in the Contempt Application that accordingly contemner, respondent, tendered sincere regret and unconditional apology for happening that took place on 25.9.2004 in the Court of the applicant. 3. That since the office of applicant did not give receipt of the affidavit therefore the Contemner sent it by registered post. True copy of the application and affidavit and Photostat copy of the receipt of registry dated 7.9.2005 are being annexed herewith as Annexures I, II and III to this affidavit. 4. That the present affidavit is being filed for showing compliance of the order dated 6.9.2005". The swearing clause of this affidavit shows that the contents of paragraph 1 and 4 are based on personal knowledge and paragraph 2 and 3 are based on record. After perusing and considering the matter this Court has framed the charges against Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate on 14.12.2005 which reads as under : “Dated 14.12.2005 Charge That you Chandra Prakash Singh, Advocate, son of Sri Buddhiman Singh, appeared in the Court of Sri S.C. Savita, C.J.M. Mainpuri (hereinafter referred to as Presiding Officer) on 25.9.2004 at about 1.10 p.m., at that time the Presiding Officer was hearing the arguments in Criminal Case No. 3926 of 1998 State v. Devesh Kumar and others, P.S. Kotwali Mainpuri. You asked the Presiding Officer, for immediate disposal of an application purported to have been moved under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. You were advised by the Presiding Officer to wait for a short while and that after argument in above case is concluded, thereafter all the Miscellaneous applications including your application would be put up for disposal by the clerk concerned for hearing and orders. But you insisted for disposal of your application then and there again you were advised by the Presiding Officer to wait and keep quiet but you became too much angry and started shouting and uttered uncalled for words that Þesjk uke pUnz izdkk flag ,MoksdsV gSA rw eq>s ugha tkurkA eSus rsjs ftyk tt dks ?kj cSBk fn;k gSA rsjh D;k vkSdkr gS] rw esjk izkFkZuk&i= igys fuLrkfjr dj] ugha rks esjh Hkh [kSj ugha gSA lkys ^umok* rq>s esjs dgus ij gh dke djuk iM+sxkAß Again you were asked by the Presiding Officer to keep quiet and warned that you were committing the contempt of Court, but you again started shouting in a loud voice and ran towards witness Box (Katghara) by uttering that Þgk¡] eSus d.VsEiV fd;k gSA ys rw dlVMh esa ys ysA rsjh ne gks rks eq>s tsy Hkst] lkysA rq>ls rks eSa ckn eS fuiVw¡xkAß Due to your ‘act’ the Court proceeding were totally disrupted. In the meantime you came out from the Court room and at the door, you were shouting loudly and uttering that ÞvHkh bldh [kcj ysrk gw¡A lkys esjs f[kykQ vHkh QSDl lqizhe dksVZ o gkbZdksVZ d#WxkA rsjs Mh0 ts0 ls Hkh vHkh fkdk;r d:xk] rw T;knk fnu dk esgeku ugh gSß By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings and obstructed the administration of justice. You Chandra Prakash Singh, Advocate, son of Sri Buddhiman Singh are hereby charged for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 29. After framing of the charges the contemnor has not filed any affidavit and it is stated by the learned Counsel for the contemnor that he does not want to give any evidence in defence. The contemnor has tendered unconditional apology and the same may be accepted. 30. 29. After framing of the charges the contemnor has not filed any affidavit and it is stated by the learned Counsel for the contemnor that he does not want to give any evidence in defence. The contemnor has tendered unconditional apology and the same may be accepted. 30. The perusal of the above shows that the allegations are of 25.9.2005 when Sri S.C. Savita, C.J.M. Mainpuri was hearing the argument in Criminal Case No. 3926 of 1998, State v. Devesh Kumar and others. The contemnor Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate appeared and caused obstruction in the Court proceedings by saying that his application purported to have been moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. be disposed of immediately. The Presiding Officer adviced to wait for a short while till the argument continued is concluded but Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate, insisted for disposal of his application then and there but he was again advised to wait and keep quite but in the meanwhile Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate, became annoyed and stated shouting uncalled for words intimated the Court, hurled abuses and uttered contemptuous language again the contemnor was asked by the presiding officer to keep quiet and warned that he was committing contempt of Court but he again started shouting ran towards witness box by uttering uncalled for words intimidating the Court which was reduced in writing in the order sheet of the aforesaid criminal case by the Presiding Officer. He has obstructed the proceedings of the Court also. 31. Heard Sri A.S. Diwakar learned Counsel for the contemnor and the learned A.G.A. 32. We see no reason to disbelieve the facts stated by S.C. Savita, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri against the contemner and we are of the opinion that the facts reported are correct. These facts clearly prove that the contemner Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan is guilty of gross criminal contempt. 33. In Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab and Hayana, AIR 1988 SC 1395 the Supreme Court observed that "under the Constitution the High Court has control over the subordinate judiciary. While exercising that control it is under a constitutional obligation to guide and protect judicial officers. An honest strict judicial officer is likely to have adversaries in the mofussil Courts. While exercising that control it is under a constitutional obligation to guide and protect judicial officers. An honest strict judicial officer is likely to have adversaries in the mofussil Courts. If complaints are entertained on trifling matters relating to judicial orders which may have been upheld by the High Court on the judicial side no judicial officer would feel protected and it would be difficult for him to discharge his duties in an honest and independent manner. An independent and honest judiciary is a sine qua non for rule of law. If judicial officers are under constant threat of complaint and enquiry on trifling matters and if High Court encourages anonymous complaints to hold the field the subordinate judiciary will not be able to administer justice in an independent and honest manner. It is therefore imperative that the High Court should also take steps to protect its honest officers by ignoring ill-conceived or motivated complaints made by the unscrupulous lawyers and litigants. 34. Thus, it has been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court that the power of the High Court of superintendence and control over the subordinate judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution includes within its ambit the duty to protect members of the subordinate judiciary. 35. In the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406 , the Apex Court had held. The definition of Criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person which would be tend to interfere with the administration of justice or which would lower the authority of Court. The public have a vital stake in effective and orderly administration of justice. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the community in the due administration of justice and, so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of Court, not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but, to protect and vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. It is a mode of vindicating the majesty of law, in its active manifestation, against obstruction and outrage.” (Frankfurter, J. in Offutt v. U.S.) "The object and purpose of punishing contempt for interfere with the administration of justice is not to safeguard or protect the dignity of the Judge or the Magistrate, but the purpose is to preserve the authority of the Courts to ensure an ordered life in society.” 36. If the judiciary has to perform its function in a fair and free manner the dignity and authority of the Court has to be respected by all concerned. Failing that, the very constitutional scheme and public faith in the judiciary runs the risk of being lost. Since the contemnor is also an Advocate the matter has to be considered with little more seriousness. An Advocate is not merely an agent or servant of his client, he is the officer of the Court. He owes a duty towards the Court. There can be nothing more serious than an act of an Advocate if it tends to obstruct or prevent the administration of law or destroy the confidence of the people in such administration. In the case of M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, (1991) 3 SCC 600 , the Apex Court observed "The tendency of malign the reputation of judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. And, when a member of the profession resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating the judge into submission, it is all the more painful. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the concerned Judge but also to the fair name of the judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviours, use of disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks like the present one are often designedly employed with a view to taming a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. Such cases raise larger issue touching the independence of not only the concerned Judge but the entire institution. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviours, use of disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks like the present one are often designedly employed with a view to taming a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. Such cases raise larger issue touching the independence of not only the concerned Judge but the entire institution. The foundation of our system which is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the presiding judicial officers with impunity. It is high time that we realize that the much cherished judicial independence has to be protected not only from the executive or the legislature but also from those who are an integral part of the system. An independent judiciary is of vital importance to any free society. Judicial independence was not achieved overnight. Since we have inherited this concept from the British, it would not be out of place to mention the struggle strong willed Judges like Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice of Common Pleas, and many others had to put up with the Crown as well as the Parliament at considerable personal risk. And when a member of the profession like the appellant who should know better so lightly trifles with much endeavoured concept of judicial independence to secure small gains it only betrays a lack of respect for the martyrs of judicial independence and for institution itself. Their sacrifice would go waste if we are not jealous to protect the fair name of judiciary from unwarranted attacks on its independence.” 37. As we said, there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the facts stated by the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned against the contemnor. 38. Their sacrifice would go waste if we are not jealous to protect the fair name of judiciary from unwarranted attacks on its independence.” 37. As we said, there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the facts stated by the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned against the contemnor. 38. So far as the charge related to the contemnor what he did on 25.9.2004 when the Presiding Officer was hearing the arguments in Criminal Case No. 3926 of 1998 State v. Devesh Kumar and others, P.S Kotwali, District Mainpuri, the contemnor appeared in the Court and asked the Presiding Officer for immediately disposal of his application purported to have been moved under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. When he was advised by the Presiding Officer to wait for a short while and that after argument in the above case is concluded thereafter all the miscellaneous applications including your application shall be put to by the clerk concerned for hearing and orders but the contemnor insisted for disposal of his application then and there. Again he was adviced by the Presiding Officer to wait and keep quite but he became too much angry and started shouting and uttered uncalled words Þesjk uke pUnz izdkk flag ,MoksdsV gSA rw eq>s ugha tkurkA eSus rsjs ftyk tt dks ?kj cSBk fn;k gSA rsjh D;k vkSdkr gS] rw esjk izkFkZuk&i= igys fuLrkfjr dj] ugh rks rsjh Hkh [kSj ugha gSA lkys ^umok* rq>s esjs dgus ij gh dke djuk iM+sxkAß 39. Again he was asked to kept quite and warned that he was committing contempt of Court again he stated shouting in a loud voice running towards the witness box by tried Þgk¡] eSus d.VsEiV fd;k gSA ys rw dLVMh esa ys ysA rsjh ne gks rks eq>s tsy Hkst] lkysA rq>ls rks eS ckn esa fuiVw¡xkß Thereafter the contemnor came out from the Court room and at the door he was shouting in that ÞvHkh bldh [kcj ysrk gw¡A lkys esjs f[kykQ vHkh QSDl lqizhe dksVZ o gkbZdksVZ d:¡xkA rsjs Mh0 ts0 ls Hkh vHkh fkdk;r d:¡xk] rw T;knk fnu dk esgeku ugha gSßA 40. The act of the contemnor is highly disgraceful. It is not expected even from a lay man. The contemnor being a practicing lawyer crosses all the limits of indiscipline. In such a situation it is very difficult for a judicial officer to discharge his duties peacefully. The act of the contemnor is highly disgraceful. It is not expected even from a lay man. The contemnor being a practicing lawyer crosses all the limits of indiscipline. In such a situation it is very difficult for a judicial officer to discharge his duties peacefully. The contemnor was dictating the terms by abusing the Presiding Officer to pass order of his desire. A Judge has a duty to discharge and he passes order in the manner as he thinks fit to the best of his capability under the facts and circumstances of the case before him. No litigant, for less an advocate, has any right to take law in his own hands. The Courts cannot be intimated to seek favourable order. His conduct amounts to intimidating the Court and lowered the authority and amounting to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings, which were being conducted by the Presiding Officer. The charge related to criminal contempt framed against him is fully established. 41. While concluding, we feel that the charges of criminal contempt like the present one established against a practicing lawyer cannot be taken lightly. No system of justice can tolerate such ignoble act and conduct of a practicing lawyer. The pertinent question would be as to what punishment we should award to the contemnor Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, advocate. In the case of Preetam Pal v. High Court of M.P., 1993(1) SCC 529, the Supreme Court rules as under : “to punish an advocate for contempt of Court, no doubt must be regarded as an extreme measure, but to preserve the proceedings of the Courts from being deflected or interfered with, and to keep the streams of justice pure, serene and undefiled, it becomes the duty of the Court, though painful to punish the contemnor in order to preserve its dignity. No one can claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt if his act or conduct in relation to Court or Court proceedings interferes with or is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice.” 42. In the present case we are of the firm opinion that the apology tendered by the contemnor is not at all bona fide or genuine. In the present case we are of the firm opinion that the apology tendered by the contemnor is not at all bona fide or genuine. In his first affidavit dated 12.7.2005 he denied the allegations by stating that he has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive and the apology tendered by him was not qualified/unconditional because it is said that if this Court reaches to the conclusion that the contemnor is guilty, the contemnor tenders unqualified apology with folded hands that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept the unconditional apology. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the contemnor made a statement before this Court after getting instruction from the contemnor who was present in the Court that the contemnor is ready to tender unconditional apology before the Presiding Officer. Considering the same the contemnor was directed by this Court to appear before the presiding officer and tender unconditional apology and the presiding officer was also directed to submit his report to this Court as to whether the contemnor tendered unconditional apology before him or not but it is surprising that after giving undertaking the contemnor did not appear in person before the Presiding Officer Sri S.C. Savita, C.J.M. Mainpuri and did not tender apology but the contemnor sent a registered letter having an affidavit as referred above. Thereafter the contemnor filed a false affidavit dated 29.9.2005 stating therein that in paragraph 2 that he has tendered unconditional apology as directed by this Hon’ble Court on 6.9.2005. The contents of paragraph 2 of this affidavit have been sworn on record because the contents of paragraph 2 are absolutely false, it was known to him that is why the swearing was not done on personal knowledge. The contemnor has filed a false affidavit because he has not appeared before the C.J.M. Mainpuri and has not tendered unconditional apology as reported by the learned C.J.M. Mainpuri but after framing of the charge no affidavit has been filed by the contemnor and it has been orally prayed by the learned Counsel for the contemnor that the contemnor has tendered unconditional apology and the same may be accepted. The oral apology after the framing of the charges has come forth when the contemnor smelled that the adventure turned into misadventure. 43. It is settled principles that the apology is not a weapon to purge the guilty of the contemnor. The oral apology after the framing of the charges has come forth when the contemnor smelled that the adventure turned into misadventure. 43. It is settled principles that the apology is not a weapon to purge the guilty of the contemnor. The apology must be sought at the earliest opportunity. Here in the present case no proper apology has been tendered by the contemnor, but tendered oral apology at the very belated stage whereas the opportunity was given to the contemnor to tender unconditional apology before the Presiding Officer Sri. S.C. Savita, C.J.M. Mainpuri but the same has not been properly availed despite the undertaking given by the contemnor before this Court, a mere formality of tendering apology has been done by the contemnor by sending the letter to the C.J.M. Mainpuri. Thereafter the contemnor has filed a false affidavit before this Court that in compliance of the order dated 6.9.2005 he has tendered unconditional apology, in such a situation the apology offered by the contemnor cannot be allowed to be employed as a device to escape rigour of law. Therefore, we do not accept the apology of the contemnor. Instead, we allow the reference and fined the contemnor Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate, to be guilty of criminal contempt. We convict him accordingly under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and after considering the nature of the contempt and criminal antecedent of the contemnor as admitted by him in paragraph 10 of his affidavit dated 12.7.2005, we sentence him to suffer simple imprisonment of four months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine he shall suffer futher simple imprisonment of two weeks. However, the punishment so imposed shall be kept in abeyance for a period of sixty days to enable him to approach the Supreme Court, if so advised. The contemnor, Sri Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Civil Court Mainpuri shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence immediately after the expiry of 60 days if no stay order is passed by the Supreme Court. In the meantime this matter will come up before this Court on 27.10.2006 for ensuring the compliance. Order Accordingly. ———