JUDGMENT Honble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.—Present contempt proceeding stems from the Reference made by Sri Surya Prakash Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate Kushinagar dated 18.9.2008 which was duly forwarded by the District Judge Kushinagar on 23.8.2008 to this Court on Administrative side for initiation of contempt proceding under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 against the contemnor namely, Bhagwati Sharma, a lawyer by profession practising law in civil Courts Kushinagar. 2. The matrix of facts filtering out unnecessary details is that on 18.8.2008 while the Court was busy hearing criminal case No. 713 of 2007 Smt. Madhubala Pandey v. Abhishek Kumar, the contemnor who was appearing for the applicant, dubbed the Court as incompetent. The words uttered by the contemnor in the course of arguments were “Court incompetent Hai”. Likewise in another case i.e. Criminal Misc.Case No. 136 of 2008 Smt. Sobha Kushwaha v. Santosh Kushwaha, while the Court took up the case for hearing, the contemnor who was appearing for Smt. Sobha Kushwaha without arguing the case on merit, stated in high pitched tone in the open Court that he repeats the same arguments. The actual words uttered by the contemnor were “Meri Yahi Bahas Is Patravali Main Bhi Hai.” It is also mentioned in the reference that by this Act the contemnor created hindrance in the judicial proceeding. 3. Upon receipt of reference, it would appear, the matter was processed by the office and initially the matter was referred to Administrative Judge Kushinagar who opined that contempt proceedings be instituted in the matter vide comments of Administrative Judge, dated 3.11.2008 which are excerpted below. “Perused the papers. Use the words “The Court is incompetent” during judicial proceedings in presence of Presiding Officer is prima facie tantamount to criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act. Let the matter be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for further orders.” 4. The matter thereafter went ahead to the end of Hon. Chief Justice who appended his approval vide order dated 3.11.2008 and thereafter, the matter came to be referred to on judicial side. Upon being listed, the Court on 7.1.2009 issued notice to the contemnor showing cause why he should not be proceeded under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for committing criminal contempt. Upon being listed, the Court on 7.1.2009 issued notice to the contemnor showing cause why he should not be proceeded under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for committing criminal contempt. It would transpire from the order sheet that on 9.2.2009 the contemnor appeared and he was allowed two weeks time to file reply. On 17.12.2009, the contemnor was present. The counsel appearing for contemnor was heard at length. The learned counsel prayed for dispensing with the requirement of framing of charge and stated that the contemnor is repentant for his conduct in the Court and apologizes with assurance not to repeat his intemperate performance again. 5. In view of the fact that the contemnor has tendered his unqualified apology in the Court at this stage after filing of the counter affidavit and he himself prayed for dispensing with the requirement of framing charge in the matter, we propose to proceed with the case accordingly. 6. Sri B.P.Srivasta, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the contemnor did not argue on merits of the case and instead, invoked the compassion of the Court for accepting the unqualified apology which the contemnor has already tendered and prayed for discharging the contemnor. He prayed for lenient view stating that the contemnor was fairly senior having already put in more than 25 years of practice attended with further submission that at no point of time, his conduct had departed from the path of rectitude and sobriety or of a conduct expected of a lawyer of this stature again followed by the submission that the contemnor has always been respectful to the Courts and has always conducted himself with utmost humility, politeness and submissiveness and has always endeavoured to maintain dignity and majesty of the Courts. 7. It would appear from the record that the contemnor filed the counter affidavit sworn on 26.2.2009. In para 4, he averred that on 18.6.2008, the contemnor appeared before the Court in two similar and identical applications under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C and reiterated the language used by the police personnel before his clients. The deponent did not add any words of his own or subtract any word therefrom. The words uttered were in good faith and therefore the same cannot be construed to be one to be used for contempt proceeding. The deponent did not add any words of his own or subtract any word therefrom. The words uttered were in good faith and therefore the same cannot be construed to be one to be used for contempt proceeding. In para 5, the contemnor averred that he never intended to scandalize the Court by saying “incompetent” and never intended to lower down the authority of the Court. However, within the purview of Section 6 of the Act nobody can be held guilty if statement made by him is in good faith against the presiding officer. In para 6, it is averred that the provisions contained under Section 13 of the Act further provide that if allegations are of such a nature which substantially interferes with the due course of justice only then a person may be held guilty of contempt otherwise no action is warranted under the Act as the jurisdiction is not intended by the legislature to uphold the personal dignity of the Judges. In para 7, it is averred that the contemnor conveyed to the C.J.M that the police of concerned police station was treating the Court as incompetent in the matter of compliance of its order and this was done absolutely in good faith and hence deponent could not be held responsible for contempt in any manner. In para 8, the contemnor has set out facts The crux of the facts stated is that the Court had passed order on 22.2.2008 in case No. 136 of 2008 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and 27.3.2008, thereafter, 2.4.2008, 3.5.2008, 8.6.2008 and 18.6.2008 were fixed seeking compliance report from the Police Station concerned. Similar in another case application was moved by Smt. Madhubala Pandey under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C to lodge the F.I.R in which the Court fixed various dates i.e. 31.10.2007, 20.11.2007, 10.12.2007, and 12.12.2007. On 12.12.2007 the Court allowed the application and directed the police to register the case. However, the police did not comply with the order of the Court. When police did not comply with the order, application was moved by Smt. Madhubala Pandey and on 28.4.2008 the Court asked for a report from the police fixing 9.5.2008. When no report was received, again an application was moved on 27.4.2008 in which 18.6.2008 was fixed. On 18.6.2008, the contemnor appeared and while arguing on the application, he repeated the words spoken by the police to his client. When no report was received, again an application was moved on 27.4.2008 in which 18.6.2008 was fixed. On 18.6.2008, the contemnor appeared and while arguing on the application, he repeated the words spoken by the police to his client. Lastly he averred that the words uttered by him were construed to be adverse to the Court. In para 12, the contemnor regretted his action and tendered his unconditional apology. In the supplementary counter affidavit, the contemnor adverted to the order passed in Contempt petition No. 16 of 2006 wherein the Division Bench of this Court discharged the contemnors in that case accepting the apology tendered by them. The allegations, it is alleged, were similar to the allegations contained in the present contempt application. 8. It would transpire that the contemnor has not denied the words uttered by him in the Court but at the same time he reiterated that the words uttered by him were reiteration of what the police personnel spoke to his client in Police Thana and in fact, as stated in para 5 of the counter affidavit sworn on 26.2.2009, he never intended to scandalize the Court and his words were misconstrued to be meant for the Presiding officer or for the Court presided over by the officer. In the earlier contempt petition No. 16 of 2006, it would appear, the contemnor was charged for committing of contempt of Court but was let off the hook upon tendering apology alongwith other advocates namely Prasiddha Narayan Dixit, Jitendra Mani Tripathi, Vindhyawasani Prakash Tripathi, Mahanth Gopal Das, Shambhoo Nath Singh, Buddhesh Mani Pandey, Vakil Rao, Mahafuzur Rahman, Rakesh Pandey, Jagdamba Prasad Singh and Pramod Singh. The relevant part of the order passed by the Division Bench on 25.9.2006 is excerpted below : “Since the contemnors have tendered their unconditional apology and they are the practising advocates in the civil Court, Kushinagar in the interest of justice and equity both, we find it proper to direct them to put in their appearance before the present District and Sessions Judge, Kushinagar within two weeks and furnish their individual affidavits tendering apology as made before this Court. The Court concerned shall maintain a record in this regard and submit a report thereon on or before Ist November, 2006.” 9. The Court concerned shall maintain a record in this regard and submit a report thereon on or before Ist November, 2006.” 9. It would thus transpire that this is the second time that the reference has been made for initiation of contempt proceeding against the contemnor. What has been stated in the counter affidavit does not appear plausible and the averments do not commend to us for acceptance. It would suffice to say that in such cases, version of the presiding officer is entitled to pre-eminence and regard being had to the facts on record, the version given by the officer is plausible and does commend to us for acceptance. In this view of the matter, the averments made in the counter affidavit fall short of acceptability. 10. Be that as it may, it would crystallize that the contemnor has not denied the charge against him and at no point of time, he refuted the allegations or justified his conduct. Be that as it may, the conduct of the contemnor in excoriating the Court as incompetent in full view of the litigant public and other lawyers, it is discernible, was one tantamounting to scandalizing the Court and lowering the image of the Court in the estimation of the public and to impair the administration of justice which in turn, tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute inasmuch as the Court was compelled to take notice of the conduct which was noted down in the order and subsequently forwarded the matter to the District Judge for onward transmission to the High Court by way of reference and by this reckoning, the working of the Court was obstructed for sometime. The contemnor is a lawyer having practice spanning 25 years as averred by him in the affidavit and a lawyer of this standing cannot be deemed to be inexperienced or novice in the profession who can claim pardon on account of his inexperience or being new entrant. It is also worthy of mention that no system of justice can tolerate such unbridled licence on the part of a person particular a lawyer, to permit himself the liberty of undermining the prestige of the Court by picking quarrel with a litigant and then slapping him in the face. Justice is a most precious concern of mankind. Its achievement through judicial institutions and processes is sensitive and fragile. Justice is a most precious concern of mankind. Its achievement through judicial institutions and processes is sensitive and fragile. The members of the bar must not forget their duties to the Court nor should they disregard propriety. Indignation or provocation however righteous may be should not be susceptible to the perception that it has become riotous indignation. 11. In the facts and circumstances, he is held guilty of having committed contempt under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act. 12. In the above conspectus, the reference made to this Court is allowed and the contemnors are held guilty of criminal contempt. 13. As a result of foregoing discussion, we propose not to award the sentence at present and defer it as the Court would like to watch the conduct and behavior for a period of one year from today. The District Judge Kushinagar shall monitor the conduct for a period of one year. In case, the contemnor repeats any act which tantamount to contempt of Court or undermining the judiciary, he will be called upon to appear in Court to receive the sentence. But if the contemnor maintains orderly, good and disciplined behaviour and does not indulge himself in the repetition of such acts within the stipulated period, then the rule shall stand discharged on the expiry of the period. 14. It is ordered accordingly. ————