JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. It is a contempt proceeding against Shri Bimlendu Shekhar, an advocate at Gopalganj, a district town of Bihar. The proceeding has commenced on a reference made by a Judicial Magistrate posted at Gopalganj. The reference under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) has been made after conducting an enquiry as provided under the Patna High Court Rules. The reference made by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 14-10-1999 contains a show cause notice issued to the contemnor in course of enquiry, reply to the show cause filed by the contemnor supported by his affidavit and some other materials. 2. Shorn of un-necessary details the reference discloses that on 17-8-99 at 11 A.M. when the learned Magistrate was sitting in the court room and listening arguments of lawyers, the contemnor came and threw a bundle of papers at the Bench and went away. The contents of those papers were to the effect that the Magistrate meets accused persons in his Chambers as well as at his residence and accepts illegal gratification. According to the learned Magistrate the contents of the papers as well as the manner in which the same were thrown at the Dias while court proceeding was going on, amount to contempt because it was a clear attempt to scandalize the court as well as to interfere in judicial proceeding. Since the show cause filed by the contemnor reiterated the allegations, hence according to the Reference made by the Magistrate the show cause dated 11-10-1999 filed by the contemnor is further a contempt. In the show cause the contemnor reiterated the allegations and cast another allegation that the Magistrate has appointed an illegal peon whose duty is to bring litigants in his Chamber to extract illegal gratification. The learned Magistrate has further mentioned in the Reference that the show cause notice issued by the Court was served upon the contemnor at his sitting place in the Bar by the peon of the Court, but in his show cause the contemnor has imputed false allegation that at the time of issuing show cause notice the Magistrate verbally threatened the contemnor that "I am not only a Magistrate but I have close association with some criminals of underworld and he would get the contemnor kidnapped with the help of such criminals". 3. 3. According to the Reference the actions and behaviour of the contemnor amount to a direct scurrilous attack upon the Magistrate which amounts to contempt of court. 4. On receipt of the reference after enquiry notice was issued upon the contemnor on 1-9-2008, through the Secretary, District Bar Association, Gopalganj and also at the residential address giving the contemnor an opportunity to show cause as to why the application for initiating criminal contempt be not admitted and disposed of in accordance with law. After service of notice was accepted as valid by this Court on 10-11-2008 the contemnor did not appear which was noticed on 18-11-2008 and on subsequent dates. Ultimately, after further verification regarding valid service of notice and considering that the contemnor has chosen not to appear on 6-01-2009, bailable warrant of arrest was issued for his appearance. Subsequently, on 28-1-2009 a petition dated 23-12-2008 filed on behalf of contemnor was noticed. In that he had given his address at New Delhi and had admitted to have received the show cause notice at Gopalganj but requested for supply of copy of the contempt petition. In that view of the matter a fresh show cause notice was issued at contennors address at New Delhi fixing 2-3-2009 as a date for filing reply. On 2-3-2009 this Court noticed deliberate attempt of the contemnor in not filing any reply and not appearing before the court. After considering all the relevant facts this Court issued bailable warrant at his New Delhi address. Thereafter the contemnor appeared on 6-4-2009 along with an advocate Mr. Dineshwar Pd. Singh and represented that the said advocate will appear on his behalf. By way of last opportunity, as prayed on behalf of the contemnor, two weeks time was granted for filing show cause on 21-4-2009. The show cause was taken on record and hearing was fixed for the next date. 5. In the show cause the contemnor has admitted the utterances against the Presiding Officer of the court and has taken a stand that he can prove that his utterances are true. After noticing this stand in the show cause on 29-4-2009 on joint prayer the matter was listed on 5th May, 2009. On that date the advocate who had earlier appeared for the contemnor withdrew vakalatnama and submitted that the contemnor had instructed him not to appear on his behalf. After noticing this stand in the show cause on 29-4-2009 on joint prayer the matter was listed on 5th May, 2009. On that date the advocate who had earlier appeared for the contemnor withdrew vakalatnama and submitted that the contemnor had instructed him not to appear on his behalf. The contemnor did not appear in person on that date nor did he engage any other advocate and hence non-bailable warrant was issued against him. Thereafter he appeared along with an Advocate. On 24-6-2009 the hearing concluded. We have examined the materials on record and in the light of submissions advanced, no issue of fact arises for determination because in the show cause filed before the learned Magistrate as well as in his show cause filed in this Court, the contemnor has admitted his conduct and utterances. His plea is that the utterances were made by him because he believes those to be true. 6. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the aforesaid defence of the contemnor is fit to be rejected in view of provisions in Section 6 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act reads thus; Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate Courts when not contempt- A person shall not be guilty of contempt of Court in respect of any statement made by him in good faith concerning the presiding officer of any subordinate Court to- (a) any other subordinate Court, or (b) the High Court, to which it is subordinate. 7. Learned Counsel for the State has further placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rama Dayal Markarha v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 2 SCC 630 to submit that the utterances spoken and written by the contemnor and his action in the open court are of such nature that they scandalized the court and substantially interfered with the due course of justice. 8. We find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the State that it was not permissible for the contemnor to throw papers in the court at the presiding judge and to write such scurrilous materials in those papers or in the show cause. If he had any grievance or complaint against the Judicial Magistrate, he ought to have moved the superior courts on administrative side for the purpose of showing his bona fide. If he had any grievance or complaint against the Judicial Magistrate, he ought to have moved the superior courts on administrative side for the purpose of showing his bona fide. In that event he could have sought protection under Section 6 of the Act. Clearly the contemnor opted for a course of action which is not only detestable but clearly impermissible. It can not the condoned otherwise, the sanctity of the Court cannot be maintained in the eyes of the people. The admitted action and utterances of the contemnor amount to scandalizing the court of the learned Magistrate and interference in the administration of justice. 9. On behalf of contemnor it was submitted that the enquiry made by the Magistrate is of no legal consequence because no witness was examined. The order of Reference was also criticized on account of alleged lack of clarity. We find no merit in such submissions in view of discussions made above. There was no requirement of examining any witness during enquiry in view of admission made by the contemnor in his show cause before the Magistrate. Not only he has admitted action and utterances in course of enquiry but has done so even in his show cause filed in this Court. The order of Reference suffers from no ambiguity or illegality. 10. In the facts of the case, we find no hesitation in holding the contemnor guilty of contempt of court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj who has made the Reference. He is accordingly found and held guilty of criminal contempt. 11. On behalf of contemnor it was submitted that in paragraph-1 of the show cause filed in this Court the contemnor has offered unconditional apology. In Court also the lawyer of the contemnor and the contemnor personally offered apology. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that apology has been tendered belatedly only before this Court when the hearing was concluded, we are not satisfied that the apology tendered by the contemnor is bona fide. Hence, we are of the view that contemnor deserves to be punished at least with fine. We accordingly punish him with a fine of Rs. 2000/- (two thousand) only to be deposited in court making the Reference within four weeks failing which the contemnor will be taken into custody for under going simple imprisonment for two months.