JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Singh, J.—This reference has come before this Court for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against Ferrum s/o Muratdhwaj, Ram Moorat, Lekhpal alias Krishna Murat sons of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar Muratdhwaj Ram Ralak and Makardhwaj son of Ram Pratap R/o village Pathra Mani, Bindeshwari son of Ram Sujan r/o Bachran and Manooj son of Ram Prasad r/o Parsauiya, P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot on the basis of the report dated 14.12.2004 sent by Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge(F.T.C.) 1st Chitrakoot (hereinafter referred as presiding officer)forwarded by Sri Rajesh Chand, learned District and Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot to the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad. 2. 2. The report dated 14.12.2004 sent by Presiding Officer reads as under : Þizs"kd jke Ñ".k kqDy] vij l= U;k;k/khk ¼Rofjr½ izFke] fp=dwVA lsok esa] ekuuh; tuin U;k;k/khk] fp=dwVA fo"k; %&nf.Mr vfHk;qDr }kjk U;kf;d izfØ;k ds nkSjku fd;s x;s voekuuk iw.kZ dk;Z ,oa O;ogkj ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] eSa tuin fp=dwV esa vij l= U;k;k/khk@QkLV VSªd dksVZ] izFke fp=dwV ds :i esa dk;Zjr gw¡A esjs U;k;ky; esa LFkkukUrfjr l= oknksa dh lquokbZ dh tkrh gSA fnukad 9-12-2004 dks l= ijh{k.k la[;k 207@2003] vijk/k la[;k 22@03 vUrxZr /kkjk 147] 148] 302@149] Hkk0 n0 fo0 Fkkuk igkM+h ftyk fp=dwV esa fu.kZ; mn~?kksf"kr fd;k x;k fu.kZ; mn~?kksf"kr djus ds mijkUr vfHk;qDrx.k U;k;ky; d{k esa U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa Fks] ltk;kch okj.V l= fyfid Jh vrok: iztkifr }kjk cuk;k tk jgk Fkk vkSj U;k;ky; l= ijh{k.k la[;k 225@2004 ljdkj cuke gqlu vkfn esa xokg dk0 lh0 ih0 307 txnh’k pUnz Fkkuk ekfudiqj dk c;ku ntZ djk;k tk jgk Fkk vkSj ftjg ds fy, ofj"B vf/koDrk Jh pUnzks[kj flag mifLFkr FksA mlh le; dksVZ eksgfjZj Jh izdkk ukjk;.k voLFkh vU; ykdi flikfg;ksa ds lkFk vkthou dkjkokl ls nf.Mr vfHk;qDrx.k Qsje iq= ewjr/ot] jkeewjr] ys[kiky mQZ Ñ".k ewjr iq=x.k jktdqekj] jktdqekj] ewjr/ot] jkt ckyd] edj/ot iq=x.k jke izrki fuoklhx.k xzke iFkjkekuh] foUnsojh iq= lqtku fuoklh cnju o eukst iq= jke izlkn fuoklh ijlkStk leLr Fkkuk igkM+h dks U;k;ky; ifjlj esa cus ykdvi esa ys tkus yxkA lkr vfHk;qDrx.k U;k;ky; d{k ds ckgj fudy x;s FksA mlh le; U;k;ky; d{k ds ckgjh xsV ls ikl U;k;ky; d{k ds Hkhrj vfHk;qDr jktdqekj us dgk fd Þlkgc tk jgs gS vki iSlk ysdj ltk fd;s gS] mlh le; edj/ot vfHk;qDr us dgk fd eknjpksn] HkkslM+h okys xyr ltk fd;s gks vkSj brus esa jktdqekj Hkh eknjpksn] HkkslM+h okys dh xkfy;k¡ fn;k vkSj lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k ckgj pys x;s] U;k;ky; d+{k ds ckgj tkus ij lHkh vfHk;qDr xkfy;k¡ nsus yxs tks U;k;ky; d{k esa lquk;h ns jgk FkkAß bl dk;Zokgh ds le; iskdkj Jh jke Ñ".k JhokLro] ofj"B vf/koDrk Jh pUnz ks[kj flag] xokg dk0 lh0 ih0 307 txnhk pUnz ¼Fkkuk ekfudiqj½] U;k;ky; ds vnZyh Jh c`t eksgu ik.Ms; o Jh johUnz dqekj ik.Ms rFkk l= fyfid Jh vrok: iztkifr ,oa Jh vrqy dqekj feJ mifLFkr Fks mUgksaus ,oa ykdi ls vk;s vU; deZpkfj;ksa ,oa ifjlj esa mifLFkr vU; cgqr ls yksxksa us Hkh vfHk;qDrx.k ds mDr ÑR; dks lquk ,oa ns[kkA U;k;ky; d{k ds ckgj Hkh lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k xkfy;ka ns jgs Fks tks U;k;ky; d{k ls lquk;h iM+ jgk FkkA nf.Mr vfHk;qDr ds mDr ÑR; ls U;k;ky; dh xfjek dks Bsl igq¡ph gS rFkk U;kf;d izfØ;k ds nkSjku ck/kk mRiUu djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k ,oa U;k;ky; dks vkrafdr djus dh dksfkk dh x;hA nf.Mr vfHk;qDrx.k jktdqekj ,oa edj/ot dk U;k;ky; d{k ds Hkhrj ,oa vU; vfHk;qDr dk U;k;ky; d+{k ds ckgj rst vkokt esa xkfy;k¡ nsuk Lora= fu"i{k U;k; izkklu dk;Z esa gLr{ksi ,oa O;o/kku gS rFkk U;k;ky; ,oa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dh xfjek dks Bsl igqpkus okys dk;Z gSA nf.Mr vfHk;qDr dk mDr ÑR; U;k;ky; dh voekuuk vf/kfu;e 1997 dh /kkjk 2-lh ds vUrxZr vkijkf/kd voekuuk ds nk;js esa vkrk gS mDr rF; dk mYys[k fu.kZ; ,oa vknsk i= esa Hkh rRdky fd;k x;k ,oa ykdi eksgfjZj Jh izdkk ukjk;u voLFkh us Hkh bl lEcU/k esa QSlyk xkMZ miyC/k djkus ds fy, vyx ls izkFkZuk i= fn;kA vr% vknsk i= ,oa fu.kZ; dh izekf.kr ifr layXu djrs gq, Jheku th ls fouez fuosnu gS fd mijksDr vfHk;qDrx.k esa ls jktdqekj ,oa edj/ot ds U;k;ky; d{k ds Hkhrj U;k;ky; dh voekuuk djus ,oa vU; lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk U;k;ky; d{k ds ckgj U;k;ky; dh voekuuk dk dk;Z djus ds fy, muds fo:) esjs fjQjsUl dks U;k;ky; dks voekuuk vf/kfu;e 1997 ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh djus dh vkSj nf.Mr djus gsrq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr dh tk;sA fnukad 14-12-2004 Hkonh; layXud % ;FkksDr g0 viBuh; jke Ñ".k kqDy vij l= U;k;k/kh’k ¼Rofjr½ izFke] fp=dwVAß 3. The Section Officer concerned submitted a note dated 13.4.2005 to O.S.D.(Contempt) thereafter on the basis of the aforesaid report In-charge O.S.D. (Computer) submitted the note dated 20.4.2005 which reads as under: “Registrar General The present applicant for initiating the contempt proceedings against Ferrum, s/o Muratdhwaj, Ram Murat, Lekhpal @ Krishna Murat, sons of Raj Kumar. Raj Kumar, Murathwaj, Ram Balak, Makradhwaj, son of Ram Pratap. r/o Village Pathramani Vindheshwari, s/o Ram Sujan r/o Baehhran, and Manoj s/o Ram Prasad, R/o Faroja, P.S. Pahadi, District Chitrakoot by Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court 1st, Chitrakoot. 4. The brief facts of the case is that on 9.12.2004 the Court pronounced the judgment in sessions Trial No. 107/2003 crime No. 22/2003 under Sections 147,148,149,302 l.P.C. P.S. Pahadi District Chitrakoot convicting the accused persons. Thereafter the Court took up S.T. No. 225/2004, State v. Husan and started to record the statement of the witness Constable Jagdish Chandra. In the meantime while the convicted accused were being brought outside of the Court by the police, accused Raj Kumar and Mukardhwaj started abusing the Presiding officer. The other accused persons Ferrum s/o Muratdhwaj, Ram Mural, Lekhpal @ Krishna Murat, sons of Raj Kumar,Raj Kumar. Muratdhwaj, Ram Balak, Makardhwaj, son of Ram Pratap, r/o Village Pathramani, Vindheshwari, s/o Ram Sujan r/o Bachhran, and Manoj, S/o Ram Prasad, R/o Faroja. P.S. Ferrum, s/o Muratdhwaj, Ram Murat, Lekhpal @, Kishna Murat, sons of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar, Muratdhwaj, Ram Balak, Makrdhwaj, sons of Ram Pratap, r/o Village Pathramani, Vindeshwari, s/o Ram Sujan r/o Bachhran, and Manoj s/o Ram Prasad, r/o Farzoja. P.S. Pahadi also started to abuse the Presiding Officer from the outside of the Court: It is alleged that at the time of the occurrence the Reader Sri Ram Krishna Srivastava, Senior Advocate Sri Chandra Shekar Singh, the witnesses Sri Jagdish Singh, P.S. Manikpur, Court Ardali Sri Brij Mohan Pandey and Sri Ravindra Kumar Pandey, Sessions Clerk Sri Atvaru Prajapati and Sri Atul Kumar were present. 5. 5. “Criminal Contempt is defied under Section 2(C) of the contempt of Court Act, 1971 which reads as follow : (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) scandalize or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings; or (iii) interfere or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; Under Section 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 9.12.2005. From the perusal of above provisions it is certain that above alleged actions of Sri Ferrum, s/o Muratdhwaj, Ram Murat, Lekhpal@ Krishna Murat, sons of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar, Muratdhwaj, Ram Balak, Makardhwaj, son of Ram Pratap, r/o Village Pathramani, Vindheshwari, s/o Ram Sujan r/o Bachhran, and Manoj, s/o Ram Prasad, r/o Farzoja, P.S. Pahadi 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. S. Illegible (Mohd. Babar) I/C. O.S.D. (Computers) Dated 20.04.2005 Hon’ble Mr. Justice KK. Misra Administrative Judge, Chitrakoot submitted for kind perusal and orders. S. Illegible 22.4.05 Registrar General “ A perusal of the above shows that the allegations are that of 9.12.2004 Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla pronounced the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 107 of 2003 under Sections 147,148,149,302, I.P.C. P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot convicting the accused contemnor Ferrum s/o Muratdhawaj, Ram Moorat, Lekhpal alias Krishna Murat sons of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar Muratdhwaj, Ram Balak and Makardhwaj sons of Ram Pratap R/o village Pathra Mani,Bindewhwari son of Ram Sujan r/o Bachhran and Manooj son of Ram Prasad r/o Parsaiya, P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot, who were present in the Court. They were taken into judicial custody. Their custody warrants after conviction were under preparation. They were taken into judicial custody. Their custody warrants after conviction were under preparation. The Presiding Officer has taken up another case S.T. No. 225 of 2004, State v. Husan, and started to record the statement of the witness Constable C.P. 307 Jagdish Chandra. In the meantime Court Moharrir along with some others Constable of the Lock up came inside the Court room to take the convict accused (Contemnors) for the lock up established in the Court compound. When seven convicted persons came out from the Court room they were on its gate, the contemnor Raj Kumar, who was inside the Court room made allegations against the Presiding Officer and the contemnor Makardhawaj who was also inside the Court room hurled abuses to the Presiding Officer and then the contemnor Raj Kumar also hurled abuses and they also came out from the Court room and again all the contemnors hurled abuses from outside the Court. 7. After perusing the material, this Court issued notices to the contemnors on 19.9.2005. The contemnors appeared before this Court in person and filed applications along with their affidavits on 23.11.2005 mentioning therein unconditional apology before the Court in the event any spontaneous act of the applicants appears to be contemptuous and the Hon’ble Court came to the conclusion that there is any slightest contempt of the Hon’ble Court.’ 8. After considering the reference and affidavits filed by the contemnors this Court has framed the charges against the contemnors on 19.12.2005 which read as under : The charge as against Ferrum is as under: “Dated 19.12.2005 Charge That you Ferrum son of Sri Muratdhwaj were accused in S.T. No. 107 of 2003, Case Crime No. 22 of 2003 under Sections 147,148, 302/149, I.P.C. P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot, You were convicted by Shri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1,Chitrakoot on 9.12.2004 and thereafter the Court took up S.T. No. 225 of 2004, State v. Husan, and started to record the statement of constable Jagdish Chandra. That you Ferrum son of Sri Muratdhwaj immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1 Chitrakoot from outside the Court. By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. That you Ferrum son of Sri Muratdhwaj immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1 Chitrakoot from outside the Court. By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. You Ferrum son of Sri Muratdhwaj are accordingly charged for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971" The charge as against Raj Kumar son of Ram Pratap is as under: “Dated 12.12.2005 Charge That you Raj Kumar s/o Ram Pratap were accused in S.T. No. 107 of 2003, Case Crime No. 22 of 2003 under Sections 147,148, 302/149, I.P.C. P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot, You were convicted by Shri Ram Krishna Shukla, additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1,Chitrakoot on 9.12.2004 and thereafter the Court took up S.T. No. 225 of 2004, State v. Husan, and started to record the statement of constable Jagdish Chandra. That you Raj Kumar s/o Ram Pratap immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1 Chitrakoot inside the Court room. You stated: Þlkgc tk jgs gS vki iSlk ysdj ltk fd;s gSß vkSj Þeknjpksn] HkkslM+h okys dh xkfy;k nh vkSj ckgj tkdj Hkh xkfy;k¡ nhß By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. You Raj Kumar s/o Ram Pratap are accordingly charged for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971" The charge as against Makardhawaj s/o Ram Pratap is as under: “Dated 12.12.2005 Charge That you Makardhawaj s/o Ram Pratap were accused in S.T. No. 107 of 2003, Case Crime No. 22 of 2003 under Sections 147,148, 302/149, I.P.C. P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot, You were convicted by Shri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1, Chitrakoot on 9.12.2004 and thereafter the Court took up S.T. No. 225 of 2004, State v. Husan, and started to record the statement of constable Jagdish Chandra. That you Makardhawaj s/o Ram Pratap immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1 Chitrakoot inside the Court room. That you Makardhawaj s/o Ram Pratap immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1 Chitrakoot inside the Court room. You stated: Þeknjpksn] HkkslM+h okys xyr ltk fd;s gksß vkSj ckgj tkdj Hkh xkfy;k¡ nhß By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. You Makardhawaj s/o Ram Pratap are accordingly charged for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971" The charge as against Makardhawaj s/o Ram Pratap is as under: “Dated 12.12.2005 Charge That you Muratdhawaj s/o Ram Pratap were accused in S.T. No. 107 of 2003. Case Crime No. 22 of 2003 under Sections 147,148, 302/149, I.P.C. P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot, You were convicted by Shri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1,Chitrakoot on 9.12.2004 and thereafter the Court took up S.T. No. 225 of 2004, State v. Husan, and started to record the statement of constable Jagdish Chandra. That you Muratdhawaj s/o Ram Pratap immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1 Chitrakoot from outside the Court. By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. You Muratdhawaj s/o Ram Pratap are accordingly charged for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971" The charge as against Ram Balak s/o Ram Pratap is as under: “Dated 12.12.2005 Charge That you Ram Balak s/o Ram Pratap were accused in S.T. No. 107 of 2003, Case Crime No. 22 of 2003 under Sections 147,148, 302/149, I.P.C. P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot, You were convicted by Shri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1,Chitrakoot on 9.12.2004 and thereafter the Court took up S.T. No. 225 of 2004, State v. Husan and started to record the statement of constable Jagdish Chandra. That you Ram Balak s/o Ram Pratap immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1 Chitrakoot from outside the Court. By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. That you Ram Balak s/o Ram Pratap immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1 Chitrakoot from outside the Court. By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. You Ram Balak s/o Ram Pratap are accordingly charged for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971" The charge as against Bindeshwari s/o Ram Sujan is as under: “Dated 12.12.2005 Charge That you Bindeshwari s/o Ram Sujan were accused in S.T. No. 107 of 2003, Case Crime No. 22 of 2003 under Sections 147,148, 302/149, I.P.C. P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot, You were convicted by Shri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1,Chitrakoot on 9.12.2004 and thereafter the Court took up S.T. No. 225 of 2004, State v. Husan, and started to record the statement of constable Jagdish Chandra. That you Bindeshwari s/o Ram Sujan immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1 Chitrakoot from outside the Court. By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. You Bindeshwari s/o Ram Sujan are accordingly charged for ^criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971" The charge as against Lekhpal @ Krishna Murat s/o Raj Kumar is as under: “Dated 12.12.2005 Charge That you Lekhpal @ Krishna Murat s/o Raj Kumar were accused in S.T. No. 107 of 2003, Case Crime No. 22 of 2003 under Sections 147,148, 302/149, I.P.C. P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot, You were convicted by Shri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1, Chitrakoot on 9.12.2004 and thereafter the Court took up S.T. No. 225 of 2004, State v. Husan, and started to record the statement of constable Jagdish Chandra. That you Lekhpal @ Krishna Murat s/o Raj Kumar immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1 Chitrakoot from outside the Court. By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. That you Lekhpal @ Krishna Murat s/o Raj Kumar immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1 Chitrakoot from outside the Court. By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. You Lekhpal @ Krishna Murat s/o Raj Kumar are accordingly charged for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971" The charge as against Ram Murat s/o Raj Kumar is as under: “Dated 12.12.2005 Charge That you Ram Murat s/o Raj Kumar were accused in S.T. No. 107 of 2003, Case Crime No. 22 of 2003 under Sections 147,148, 302/149, I.P.C. P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot, You were convicted by Shri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1,Chitrakoot on 9.12.2004 and thereafter the Court took up S.T. No. 225 of 2004, State v. Husan and started to record the statement of constable Jagdish Chandra. That you Ram Murat s/o Raj Kumar immediately (hereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1 Chitrakoot from outside the Court. By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. You Ram Mural s/o Raj Kumar are accordingly charged for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971" The charge as against Manoj s/o Ram Prasad is as under: “Dated 12.12.2005 Charge That you Manoj s/o Ram Prasad were accused in S.T. No. 107 of 2003, Case Crime No. 22 of 2003 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, I.P.C. P.S. Pahari district Chitrakoot, You were convicted by Shri Ram Krishna Shukla, additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court No. 1.Chitrakoot on 9.12.2004 and thereafter the Court took up S.T. No. 225 of 2004, State v. Husan, and started to record the statement of constable Jagdish Chandra. That you Manoj immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1 Chitrakoot from outside the Court. By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. That you Manoj immediately thereafter started abusing the Presiding Officer Sri Ram Krishna Shukla, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1 Chitrakoot from outside the Court. By your conduct you scandalized the Court, lowered the dignity of the Court, interfered with the course of justice and obstructed the administration of justice. You Manoj s/o Ram Prasad are accordingly charged for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971" Charges framed against the contemnor were read over and explained to them but they denied to adduce any evidence in their defence and tendered unconditional apology. 9. We have heard Sri Murlidhar and Tripathi B.G. Bhai learned Counsel for the contemnor and the learned A.G.A. 10. We see no reason to disbelieve the fact stated by Ram Krishna Shukl, Additional District and Sessions Judge(F.T.C.) I Chitrakoot against the contemnors and we are of the opinion that the fact reported are correct. The facts clearly proved that the contemnors are guilty of gross contempt. 11. 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. 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 filed 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. 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. 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. 12. In the case of Delhi judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 Supreme Court Cases 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.” 13. 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. In the case of M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 1834 the Apex Court observed “The tendency of maligning 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. In the case of M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 1834 the Apex Court observed “The tendency of maligning 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. 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 endeared 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.” 14. Their sacrifice would go waste if we are not jealous to protect the fair name of judiciary from unwarranted attacks on its independence.” 14. We have said that there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the facts stated by the Presiding Officer and the Court concerned against the contemnors and the same have not been controverted by the contemnors the charge relating to the criminal contempt framed against the contemnors has been fully established. The contemnor Raj Kumar and Makardhawaj hurled abuses at the Presiding Officer inside the Court room also, their charge is more serious than the other contemnors, who hurled abuses along with the contemnors Raj Kumar and Makardhwaj outside the Courtroom. 15. In the present case we are of the firm opinion that apology tendered by the contemnor is not at all bona fide or genuine, it was not unqualified apology. It is well settled principles that the apology is not a weapon to purge the guilt of the contemnor. The apology must be sought at the earliest opportunity and it must be unqualified. The apology tendered is to escape from the punishment for the grossest criminal contempt committed by them. The apology so offered by them cannot be allowed to be employed as a device to escape the rigour of law. Therefore, we do not accept the apology of the contemnors. Instead we allow the reference and find the contemnors Ferrum, s/o Murathwaj, Ram Murat, Lekhpal @ Krishna Murat, sons of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar, Muratdhwaj, Ram Balak, Makardhwaj sons of Ram Pratap, r/o Village Pathramani, Vindheshwari s/o Ram Sujan r/o Bachhran, and Manoj, s/o Ram Prasad, r/o Parsaiya, P.S. Pahadi, District Chitrakoot to be guilty of contempt of Court. We convict them accordingly under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and considering the gravity of the charge established against the contemnors Raj Kumar and Makardhawaj they are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of 4 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and remaining contemnors Ram Murat, Lekhpal @ Krishna Murat, sons of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar, Murathwaj, Ram Balak sons of Ram Pratap r/o Village Pathramani, Vindheshwari, s/o Ram Sujan r/o Bachhran, and Manoj s/o Ram Prasad, r/o Parasaiya, P.S. Pahadi District Chitrakoot are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of two months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each and remaining contemnors Ram Murat, Lekhpal @ Krishna Murat, sons of Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar, Murathwaj, Ram Balak sons of Ram Pratap r/o Village Pathramani, Vindheshwari, s/o Ram Sujan r/o Bachhran, and Manoj s/o Ram Prasad, r/o Parasaiya, P.S. Pahadi District Chitrakoot are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of two months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment of fine they shall suffer further simple imprisonment of one month. The punishment so imposed shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 60 days to enable them to approach the Supreme Court, if so advised. The contemnors Ferrum, Ram Murat, Lekhpal @ Krishna Murat, Raj Kumar, Muratdhwaj, Ram Balak, Makardhwaj, Vindeshwari and Manoj shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence immediately after the expiry of 60 days, if no stay order is passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the meantime, let the matter be come up before this Court on 27.10.2006 for ensuring their compliance. Reference Allowed. ———