Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1140 (MP)

State Of M. P. v. Mahavir Prasad Sharma, Advocate

2007-10-26

MANJUSHA P.NAMJOSHI, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2007
ORDER : Mr. Girish Desai, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. Mr. Mahavir Prasad Sharma s/o Bholaram, contemner, is present in person. Heard. Before adverting to the series of applications filed by the respondent, a brief reference to the circumstances in which the case of Contempt was registered against him, appears necessary. 2. The respondent was appearing as an Advocate for the respondent in Writ Appeal No. 343/2006, which was decided by order dated 8th May, 2007. Not satisfied with the said decision, a Review Application under the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed in which certain aspersions were cast and scurrilous allegations were made. It was pointed out in paragraph 4 of the said application by the Advocate that the review application was necessitated to point out the mistakes/errors/lapses committed by this Court in order to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court on that basis. In the Affidavit of the respondent-contemner, in paragraph 4, had also stated that the review was filed so that the mistakes committed by this Court are not repeated and that the matter shall be reported to Hon'ble Chief Justice, if so advised by the petitioner, before the Special Leave Petition is filed before the Supreme Court. The review application had thus proceeded on the assumption that the decision rendered by this Court would not be in favour of the applicant seeking review and it would be necessary to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. In the order dated 22/06/2007, passed in the said M.C.C. No. 408/2007, the extracts from the Review Petition as also from the Affidavit of the Contemner were quoted verbatim. 3. In view of the said recalcitrant attitude of the Contemner, it was observed that the manner in which the statement had been made, it conveyed in no unmistakable terms that the Advocate was trying to overreach and intimidate this Court with a view to obtain a favourable order on the ground that else he would approach the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court of India in SLP. The approach of the counsel was not only deprecated but on account of the impertinence and impudence displayed and the resort of the learned counsel to motivated remarks with a view to overreach the Court and to prevail upon the Court to pass an order favourable to him, the proceedings of Contempt were initiated against the respondent-contemner. 4. After receipt of the notice of the proceedings, the contemner has filed several applications on which the contemner has been fully heard. Attention was first invited to I.A. No. 5319/2007 in which, on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court reported in Harinath Sharma vs. Jaipur Development Authority, 1995(II) MPWN 141 , the respondent contended that the Contempt Proceedings should be kept in abeyance till decision of the Review filed by his client. In the Affidavit filed in support of this application, the respondent has reiterated that enraged by the offending and contemptuous material, this Court has initiated the contempt proceedings. 5. The next application for consideration is IA No. 6100/2007 to the effect that the contempt proceedings should be kept in abeyance till decision of the review filed by the original petitioner. Contents of this application also present a very cunning attitude of the contemner. In paragraph 11 of this application, the contemner has stated that there has been a progressive decline in courtesy to Advocates and their image has diluted because the Courts express anguish and create terror. It has further been stated that without first deciding the Contempt Petition, the steps taken by the Court tantamounts to diminishing the status of the Advocates and that the Courts do not act in accordance with what they profess. It has also been stated that the attitude of this Court displays predilection for convicting the respondent and the proceedings are just an eye wash. He has also alleged that the action taken against him displays personal annoyance and polluted mentality of the Court. To say the least, the respondent-contemner, by filing this application, has aggravated the contempt committed by him by attributing to this Court motives for proceeding against him and that the Court has predilection to punish him for the contempt and the procedure adopted is just sham. 6. The original petitioner has filed IA No. 6105/2007 for keeping the proceedings in abeyance till decision of the review petition. 6. The original petitioner has filed IA No. 6105/2007 for keeping the proceedings in abeyance till decision of the review petition. In order to give support to this application, the respondent has also filed IA No. 6712/2007 for stay of the contempt proceedings. Application, IA No. 6841/2007, has also been filed to refer the questions raised in the said application to a Larger Bench for an authentic enunciation in matters relating to contempt where review application is pending. The applications, IA No. 6105/2007, IA No. 6712/2007 and IA No. 6841/2007, only depict the intention of the contemner to engage in dilatory tactics in order to avert the consequences of his felonious act. Another application, IA No. 6842/2007, has been filed by the original petitioner to seek a fixed date for hearing of his review application. 7. From the narration of the facts leading to initiation of the proceedings and the facts contained in subsequent applications, it is clear that the petitioner does not have the least remorse for his unseemly acts and conduct and has, on the contrary, aggravated the situation by attributing motive to the Court in commencing the contempt proceedings. We have already referred to the contents of paragraph Nos. 11 and 13 of IA No. 6133/2007 to the effect that Courts create terror and act contrary to the decorum of the institution and that the initiation of the proceedings only indicate the polluted mentality of the Court. In the face of this flagrant irresponsible allegation imputing motive to the Court, the apology filed by the respondent is intended only to wriggle out of the situation and save himself from the consequences. Indeed, the subsequent applications filed by the contemner, as referred to above, aggravate the culpability and, therefore, although the apology cannot be rejected merely because it is conditional, the fact that apology has been filed only to earn impunity and is not bona fide cannot be overlooked. As stated above, by his application IA No. 6100/2007 to the effect that the Courts have created terror and demeaned the status of the Members of the Bar and that the action of the Court is an outcome of polluted mentality, the bona fides of the apology tendered by the respondent suffer from serious doubts. The apology, not being panacea, is rejected in the circumstances alluded to above. 8. The apology, not being panacea, is rejected in the circumstances alluded to above. 8. From the facts stated hereinabove and the subsequent material which solidifies and strengthens the facts on which the contempt petition is based, it is clear that the respondent has not expressed any remorse or regret for his fellonious acts and impudent behaviour and on the contrary, aggravated the situation by imputing motives to the Court and stating that the proceedings are an outcome of polluted mentality. The Contempt committed by the respondent is gross and cannot be lightly viewed or brushed aside. Though the act of the respondent-contemner requires deterrent punishment in order to curb such tendency on the part of the litigants and their counsel, and for eradication of such tendency, the respondent being an Advocate of considerable standing, we are of the view that severe punishment is not called for. 9. Accordingly, the respondent is convicted under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand). If the fine is not paid within a period of a month from today, the respondent-contemner shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week. 10. The respondent-contemner submits that he should be granted time to file an appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against his conviction and sentence. The prayer is allowed. If the respondent-contemner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand), the sentence of imprisonment passed against him shall remain in abeyance for a period of thirty days from today. This Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of.