IMTIYAZ MURTAZA, J, J. ( 1 ) THE contempt proceeding in the instant case has its genesis in the letter/complaint made by the contemnors Anil Kumar and Bal kishan Giri addressed to Hon. Chief Justice, high Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 17. 8. 2009 and 14. 8. 2009 respectively. The genesis of the complaint made by the contemnors pertains to case crime No. 190 of 2008 under section 364, 302, 201, 147, 148, 149, 411, 404 IPC read with section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act. It would transpire that the report of the occurrence was lodged by the contemnor at P. S. Baleni District Baghpat on 23. 5. 2008 alleging that his younger brother Sunil Kumar along with two others namely Puneet Gir and Sudhir Ujjawal were brutally murdered at about 10 p. m. ( 2 ) ON 22. 5. 2009 and their bodies were recovered from the car which was found abandoned near the Bridge of Hindon river. It was apprehended in the F. I. R that someone who were inimical to them had murdered them brutally by sharp edged weapon. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused in the triple murder case whose name transpired during investigation, belonged to very influential family of Meerut and three Judges of this Court namely Mr. Justice S. K. Jain, Mr. Justice V. K. Verma and Mr. Justice S. C. Nigam were known to the family and had proximity with the members of the said family on account of their posting at Meerut at one time or the other before elevation. It is further alleged that Mr. Justice V. K. Verma had admitted to bail two of the accused persons namely Rizwan and Wasim vide bail application No. 924 of 2009 and 1238 of 2009 on 17. 7. 2009 illegally and with ulterior motives despite the fact that the family of the accused was known to him while posted at Meerut. ( 3 ) IT is further alleged that all the three Judges of this Court have been amenable to the wishes of Sri V. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate of this Court and on account of clout of the aforesaid V. P. Srivastava; the Judges of this court have admitted the accused to bail. It is prayed in the complaint that the bail application nos. It is prayed in the complaint that the bail application nos. 20781 of 2009, 20782 of 2009 and 20783 of 2009 may be recalled from the aforesaid Judges and may be assigned to some senior Judge of repute for hearing and disposal. On similar lines is the complaint made by Balkishan Giri, Advocate arrayed as contemnor no. 2. However, the contemnor Balkishan Giri in his complaint has made serious allegation against justice S. K. Jain to the exclusion of two other Judges namely justice V. K. Verma and Justice S. C. Nigam, upon receipt of the complaint made by Anil kumar and Bal Kishan Giri, Hon. Chief Justice passed the order dated 8. 9. 2009 to the effect "place it on the judicial file". On 12. 11. 2009, while taking up the application Nos 252730 of 2009 and 252736 of 2009 in Criminal Misc. Bail application Nos. 20781 of 2009, Afzal vs. State of U. P. , 20782 of 2009 badruddin Vs. state of U. P and 20783 of 2009 Mehraj Vs. State of U. P. , the Division Bench consisting of Hon. C. K. Prasad C. J and Hon. Sanjay Misra, j, following order was passed- "a letter dated 14th August, 2009 written by Balkishan Giri an Advocate as also a letter dated 17th of August 2009 written by Anil Kumar, prima facie, show commission of criminal contempt. Issue notice to Balkishan Giri as also Anil kumar as to why a proceeding for contempt be not initiated against them. Cause if any, be filed by 23rd Nov 2009. List it for consideration on 25th of november, 2009. A separate case be registered in this regard. " As stated in the order dated 7. 12. 2009 on which date detailed order was passed consequent upon the prayer of the contemnor seeking discharge, it has been mentioned that the learned counsel stated across the bar that the charges be not framed as the contemners have pleaded guilty and they do not claim to be tried. It is also mentioned that the learned counsel also drew attention to the affidavits filed by the contemners in which they have admitted to their guilt and pleaded for being purged of the charges by accepting unqualified apology. It is also mentioned that the learned counsel also drew attention to the affidavits filed by the contemners in which they have admitted to their guilt and pleaded for being purged of the charges by accepting unqualified apology. Their prayer for discharge was premised on the ground that on account of murders of their close relatives, they were not in a mentally fit state and had made allegations without intending to mean what they had stated in the complaint. Despite being cautioned that cognizance of the matter has already been taken by the order passed by the Bench presided over by Hon. Chief Justice, the learned counsel did not budge from the earlier stand. ( 4 ) SRI Anoop Trivedi, appearing for the contemnors pleaded for merciful view stating that the contemnors have already submitted unqualified apology and they are repentant for what they have alleged against the Hon. Judges of this Court. He also prayed for discharge of the contemnors stating that the contemnors were not mentally in a fit state of mind on account of murder of their close relatives in which hands of accused transpired in the course of investigation. He also submitted that what has happened was a mere aberration and was not intended and that the contemnors are not addicted to using contemptuous language or making scurrilous attacks. Lastly he submitted that the contemnors may be afforded an opportunity to prove their mettle as good citizens. He submitted that the contemnors never intended to show disrespect to the Hon Judges of this court and they should be purged of the charges. ( 5 ) WE have delved into the affidavits sworn and filed by Anil Kumar and Bal Krishna contemnors. Initially, he had set out details of the case involving murder of his close relative and consequent proceeding initiated in the matter from paras 1 to 9. In para 10, it is averred that the accused persons were politically mighty and influential persons and the deponent and his family members were threatened and were suffering from a state of shock. In para 11, it is averred that when the accused persons preferred their bail applications, the Advocates at District Court meerut and several other persons tarted saying that the accused persons were mighty persons and would manage to come out of the Jail. In para 11, it is averred that when the accused persons preferred their bail applications, the Advocates at District Court meerut and several other persons tarted saying that the accused persons were mighty persons and would manage to come out of the Jail. In para 12, it is averred that the deponent was misguided by the Advocates at Meerut and as such in a fit of anguish the deponent preferred a letter to Hon. The Chief Justice on 17. 8. 2009. In paras 13 and 14, it is averred that after receipt of notice from Registrar Lucknow bench , he filed affidavit with accompanying application the contents of which were a sequel to deponent being misguided and also on public assertion of certain accused persons. In para 16, it is averred that it was not intended on his part to commit contempt. However, he tenders his unconditional apology in case of any inadvertent mistake committed by the deponent. In para 18, it is averred that he was not in a fit mental state after murder of his younger brother and he took action to prevent miscarriage of justice and to save himself from the ire of the high mighty people involved in the case. To the similar effect is the affidavit filed by Bal Krishna contemnor and we do not propose to burden this judgment by recapitulating those very facts all over again. The offending portion of the complaint dated 14. 8. 2009 made by contemnor Bal Krishna involving Judges of this Court may be excerpted below for ready reference. "4. That the above cited persons have always an influential grip upon the administrative and even few judicial officers those who are/have been posted in Meerut time to time. They developed personal relations with them by way of dinners, parties and functions in various manners directly and indirectly to facilitate their multiple operations and activities. 5. That to the knowledge of the applicant, Hon. Justice Mr. S. K. Jain had been posted in Meerut and one Sri momin Hassan, who is himself a legal practitioner too and has contacts with above accused Gang as well as with hon. Justice Mr. S. K. Jain has taken responsibility to get the above accused bailed out. 6. 5. That to the knowledge of the applicant, Hon. Justice Mr. S. K. Jain had been posted in Meerut and one Sri momin Hassan, who is himself a legal practitioner too and has contacts with above accused Gang as well as with hon. Justice Mr. S. K. Jain has taken responsibility to get the above accused bailed out. 6. That an unidentified source has informed the applicants colleague and advising counsel in above case crime namely, Sri Anil Kumar Buxi, also an Ex-President of Meerut Bar Association making call from Phone No. 0121-3295470 about the above narration. The source also claimed that the above mentioned Sri Momin Hassan, Advocate has been paid a huge amount of Rupees 35 lacs by the pairokars of above accused persons. 7. That the above bail applications were listed before Hon. Justice Mr. S. K. Jain on dated: August 12, 2009 but since he could not sit on the very day, the hearing was transferred to another bench and the counsel of the above accused refrained from arguing the same before the newly fixed bench of hon. High Court, Allahabad and now all the three bail applications have been listed for August 19, 2009 before Hon. Justice Mr. S. K. Jain again. 8. That the conduct of pairokars and counsel of the above accused side has aroused apprehension in the mind of the applicant and other victim sufferer of the above case crime. Hence this petition. In the complaint dated 17. 8. 2009 made by Contemnor Anil Kumar , the offending portions may be excerpted below. "4. That Akhalakh family have good connection with all judges posted at meerut. Hon. Mr. Justice S. C. Nigam was posted in Meerut in the year 1981 to 1984 and 2002-03 on the posts of addl. Civil Judge/a. C. J. M and Addl. District and Sessions Judge respectively. Hon. Justice Mr. S. K. Jain was also posted at Meerut as Additional District and Sessions Judge in 2002-03. 5. That all the Hon. Justices V. K. Verma, s. K. Jain and S. C. Nigam have been promoted to the High Court Judges from the cadre of District Judges. Hon. Justice Mr. S. K. Jain and Hon. Justice s. C. Nigam remained posted in Civil Court meerut as Additional District Judge together in the year 2002-03 and have been promoted from Meerut Judgeship to the cadre of District Judge. Hon. Justice Mr. S. K. Jain and Hon. Justice s. C. Nigam remained posted in Civil Court meerut as Additional District Judge together in the year 2002-03 and have been promoted from Meerut Judgeship to the cadre of District Judge. They are very good friends. Hon. Mr. Justice V. K. Verma also has very good intimacy with them. They have made a caucus with V. P. Srivastava, senior Advocate of Allahabad High Court for granting major bails to known accused in Criminal cases illegally and with ulterior motives. Hon. Justice v. K. Verma has granted bails to two accused namely Rizwan and Wassim in aforesaid famous triple murder case of meerut in bail application No. 924 of 2009 and 1238 of 2009 on 17. 7. 2009 illegally and with ulterior motives. The undersigned does (not) have any confidence/faith in the aforesaid three hon. Judges of Allahabad High Court as they may pass any order at the behest of Mr. V. P. Srivastava, Advocate. The undersigned requests you to please consider the matter promptly and without any delay and further request you to please hear the bail application no. 20781/09, 20782/2009 and 20783/2009 either himself or transfer the same to any senior reputed Judge of allahabad High Court. " ( 6 ) IN so far as contemnor Bal Krishna is concerned, the offending portions may be summed up which are- (1) the family of the accused have had influential grip upon the administrative as well as few juridical officers. (2) that one Momin Hassan a legal practitioner who is connected with the gang of accused had contacts with Justice S. K. Jain and the said Momin Hassan had taken responsibility to get accused bailed out. (3) that Momin hassan has been paid Rs. 35 lacs for the purposes (4) that the three bail applications were earlier listed but could not be heard and the counsel appearing for accused avoided arguing the said case before the Bench other than Justice S. K. Jain and the bail applications have now been listed before Justice S. K. Jain and (5) that the conduct of pairokars have aroused apprehension in the mind of the applicant and other victims. The allegations are couched in a language which certainly caste aspersions upon the good reputation, integrity and impartiality of the Judge. The allegations are couched in a language which certainly caste aspersions upon the good reputation, integrity and impartiality of the Judge. The offending part of the allegations made in the complaint scripted by Anil Kumar may be summed up as under: (1) Akhlaq had good relations with Mr. Justice S. C. Nigam from the date since he was posted at Meerut on three terms, (2) that Justice V. K. Verma had good intimacy with the family of the accused and the accused have made a clique along with one V. P. Srivastava Senior Advocate of allahabad High Court for procuring major bails illegally and with ulterior motives. Mr. Justice v. K. Verma has admitted to bail two accused namely Rizwan and Wasim illegally and with ulterior motives. The three Judges (V. K. Verma, s. K. Jain and S. C. Nigam) may pass any order at the behest of V. P. Srivastava Advocate. The question that now crops up for consideration is whether the written allegations which have been extracted above made by the contemnors amount to a scurrilous attack on the integrity, honesty and judicial impartiality of the learned Judges of this Court and whether the contemnor by his conduct as well as by making such written scandalizing allegations has interfered and seriously disturbed the system of administration of justice by bringing it down to disrespect and disrepute. The decisions abound in on the point of particular instances of conduct which have been held to constitute contempt of court. The Apex Court in various decisions cited observation of Lord Russell of Killowen c. J in R v. Gray and of Alord Atkin in Andre paul Terence Ambard v. Attorney General, lord Denning M. R. In Morris Vs. Crown office, Frankfurter J in Offutt v. U. S. In jennison Vs. Baker (1972) 1 All ER 997, the observation made was to the effect that "the law should not be seen to sit by limply while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection lose hope. Crown office, Frankfurter J in Offutt v. U. S. In jennison Vs. Baker (1972) 1 All ER 997, the observation made was to the effect that "the law should not be seen to sit by limply while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection lose hope. " In Brahma Prakash AIR 1954 sc 10 , the Apex Court held as under: "it will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the Judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the Courts administration of justice, or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the Judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. It is well established that it is not necessary to prove affirmatively that there has been an actual interference with the administration of justice by reason of such defamatory statement, it is enough if it is likely, or tends in any way, to interfere with the proper administration of law. In Asha Ram M. Jain Vs. A. T. Gupta, 1983 SCC (Cri) 771, the Apex Court observed as under: "the strains and mortification of litigation cannot be allowed to lead litigants to tarnish, terrorise and destroy the system of administration of justice by vilification of judges. It is not that judges need be protected; judges may well take care of themselves. It is the right and interest of the public in the due administration of justice that has to be protected. " In N. B. Sanghvi Vs. High Court of punjab and Haryana (1991) 3 SCC 600 the Apex Court observed as under:"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. 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 behaviour, 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 issues 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 realise 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 the 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 the 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 the institution itself. Their sacrifice would go waste if we are not jealous to protect the fair name of the judiciary from unwarranted attacks on its independence. " ( 7 ) IF the words are read in the context in which they have been written, there are imputations of mala fides bias and prejudice against the three sitting Judges of this Court, the same would unambiguously show that the utterances and the outrageous allegations made by the contemnors have the potential of impairing the administration of justice and the same seek to strike a blow on the judiciary besides sullying the image, dignity and high esteem which the office of the Judge of the high Court carries with it. In our opinion, the utterances made are a flagrant onslaught on the independence of the judiciary, destructive of the orderly administration of justice and a challenge to the supremacy of the Rule of law. The words are indeed such which are not only scurrilous but have the effect of casting aspersions upon their reputation and integrity and the same would certainly have the import and inevitable effect of undermining the confidence of the public in the judiciary. Thus the contempt involved in these passages is greatly scandalous. ( 8 ) THE foundation of judicial system which is founded on the independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the Judges with impurity, the much cherished judicial independence which is of vital significance to any free society has to be protected not only from the executive or the legislature but also from those who are an integral part of the system. The tendency of browbeating the judicial officers into submission is on the increase and when there is deliberate attempt to scandalise, it not only shakes the confidence of the litigating public in the system but causes damages to the reputation of the judge and brings disgrace to the fair name of the judiciary. In re: Ajay Kumar Pandey reported in air 1997 SC 260 , the Apex Court in para 42, observed that "we may observe that any threat of filing a complaint against the judge in respect of the judicial proceedings conducted by him in his own court is a positive attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice. In order that the Judges may fearlessly and independently act in the discharge of their judicial functions, it is necessary that they should have full liberty to act within the sphere of their activity. If, however, litigants and their counsel start threatening the Judge or launch prosecution against him for what he has honestly and bona fide done in his Court, the judicial independence would vanish eroding the very edifice on which the institution of justice stands. It would also be in violation of the statutory protection available to the Judges and Magistrates under the Judicial Officers (Protection) Act as also the Judges (Protection)Act". It would also be in violation of the statutory protection available to the Judges and Magistrates under the Judicial Officers (Protection) Act as also the Judges (Protection)Act". ( 9 ) A Judge has a duty to discharge his judicial functions and he passes order in the manner as he likes fit to the best of his capability in the facts and circumstances of the case. The courts cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders or to make the court run on his dictate. In the present case, the conduct of the contemnor amounts to intimidating the court and lowering the authority and it clearly amounts to interference with due course of judicial proceedings which were being conducted by the Judges of this Court. In the above conspectus, the charge related to criminal contempt framed against the contemnor is fully established. Now the question remains whether the apology tendered should be accepted or not after holding the contemnors guilty of contempt. Before we proceed further, we would not flinch from saying that the apology is not to be used as a weapon of defence forged always to be used as a shield to protect the contemnor as a last resort. It is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. The apology, in order to dilute the gravity of the offence, it has repeatedly been ruled in catena of decisions, should be voluntary, unconditional and indicative of remorse and real contrition and it should be tendered at the earliest opportunity. We have to administer caution to ourselves that we should not be inveigled into accepting apology from those who are addicted to using contemptuous language and making scurrilous attacks and have to their discredit, earlier instance of misfeasance. It is well enunciated by catena of decisions that if the veiled object is disgrace, humiliate or cause harassment to the officers the Court must put an end to the mischief. ( 10 ) IN connection with whether the apology commends itself for acceptance or not, we may refer to decision of the Apex Court in l. D. Jaikwal Vs. State of U. P. , [1984] cr. L. J 993, in which the Apex Court in para 6 observed as under: "we do not think that merely because the appellant has tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence and allow him to go unpunished. State of U. P. , [1984] cr. L. J 993, in which the Apex Court in para 6 observed as under: "we do not think that merely because the appellant has tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence and allow him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that a person wanting to intimidate a judge by making the grossest imputations against him has to do, is to go ahead and scandalize him and later on tender a formal empty apology which costs him practically nothing. If such an apology were to be accepted, as a rule, and not as an exception, we would in fart be virtually issuing a licence to scandalize Courts and commit contempt of Court with impunity. It will be rather difficult to persuade members of the bar, who care for their self-respect, to join the judiciary if they are expected to pay such a price for it. And no sitting judge will feel free to decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on account of the fear of being scandalized and persecuted by an Advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations if the Judge goes against his wishes. If this situation were, to be countenanced, advocates who can cow down the judges, and make them fall in line with their wishes, by threats of character assassination and persecution will be preferred by the litigants to the advocates who are mindful of professional ethics and believe, in maintaining the decorum of Courts. " Like wise, the Apex Court in para 7 describing the apology as a paper apology refused to accept it in the following words:"7. We have yet to come across a judge who can take a decision which does not displease one side or the other. By the very nature of his work he has to decide matters against one or other of the parties. If the fact that he renders a decision which is resented to by a litigant or his lawyer were to expose him to such risk, it will sound the death knell of the institution. A line has therefore to be drawn somewhere, some day, by some one. That is why the Court is impelled to act (rather than merely sermonize) much as the court dislikes imposing punishment whilst exercising the contempt. jurisdiction, which no doubt has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. A line has therefore to be drawn somewhere, some day, by some one. That is why the Court is impelled to act (rather than merely sermonize) much as the court dislikes imposing punishment whilst exercising the contempt. jurisdiction, which no doubt has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. We do not think that we can adopt an attitude of unmerited leniency at the cost of principle and at the expense of the Judge who has been scandalized. We are fully aware that it is not very difficult to show magnanimity when some one else is the victim rather than, when oneself is the victim. To pursue a populist line of showing indulgence is not very difficult in fact it is more difficult to resist the temptation, to do so rather than to adhere to the nail-studded path of duty. Institutional perspective demands that considerations of populism are not allowed to obstruct the path of duty. We, therefore, cannot take a lenient or indulgent view of this matter. We dread the day when a Judge cannot work with independence by reason of the fear that a disgruntled member of the Bar can publicly humiliate him and heap disgrace on him with impunity, if any of his orders, or the decision rendered by him, displeases any of the advocates appearing in the matter. " ( 11 ) AS held above, it leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that the remarks made against the officer were calculated to undermine the confidence of the public in the capacity or integrity of the Judge and were likely to deflect the court itself from a strict and unhesitant performance of its duties. It is in this conspectus, we feel compelled to say that the apology submitted by him does not seem to inspire a real contriteness on his part but is used as a device to screen himself from the rigours of law. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment in M. S. Singhvi has rightly observed that the incidence of contempt is ever on the increase. There is a felt need to curb such incidence. To cap it all, the majesty and dignity of the court has to be preserved. It should not be forgotten that frequent attacks on the dignity of the courts would shake the very foundation of the judiciary. There is a felt need to curb such incidence. To cap it all, the majesty and dignity of the court has to be preserved. It should not be forgotten that frequent attacks on the dignity of the courts would shake the very foundation of the judiciary. The courts have to perform judicial functions in responsible yet disagreeable ambiance and they require utmost protection. The attack made on judges disparaging in character and derogatory to their dignity would vitally shake the confidence of the public in them. The vitriolic attacks made on the Judges were much more than mere insult and in effect they scandalized the court in such a way as to create distrust in the popular mind and impair confidence of the people in court. The administration of justice must remain independent, clean, fearless and impartial. In the above conspectus, the apology in so far as it prays for discharge does not commend to us for acceptance and it is turned down. However, on sentencing point, we have to advert to the sentencing policy that punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence, but in so far as present case is concerned, there are some extenuating circumstances to mitigate the sentence firstly that the contemnors did not adopt any defiant view and immediately filed apology stating that they were inveigled into making complaints by certain lawyers. They have expressed contrition and repentance for the vicious allegations made against the sitting judges of the High Court. They have not exhibited any dogged determination to pursue the matter. They neither ventured into another bout of allegations nor persisted in their campaign of vilification. The conduct should be read as mitigating the offence against them. As a result of foregoing discussion, the reference made to this Court is allowed and the contemnor is held guilty of criminal contempt. We accordingly convict him under section 2 (c) (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each and to pay a fine of Rs. 20000/- each. In default, it may be prescribed, contemnors shall undergo further simple imprisonment for two weeks. However, the punishment so imposed shall be kept in abeyance for a period of sixty days so as to enable the contemnor to approach the apex Court if so advised. 20000/- each. In default, it may be prescribed, contemnors shall undergo further simple imprisonment for two weeks. However, the punishment so imposed shall be kept in abeyance for a period of sixty days so as to enable the contemnor to approach the apex Court if so advised. It needs hardly be said that immediately after expiry of sixty days in case no stay order is furnished by the contemnor, he would be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence immediately. The matter shall be listed before this Court in the second week of May 2010 ensuring compliance. .