Imtiyaz Murtaza J. 1. The genesis of present contempt proceeding is the report made by Sri R.P.Saroj, the then Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S.D.) posted at Chandausi, an outlying court of Moradabad Judgeship vide letter dated 4.9.2006 with accompanying letter of District Judge dated 7.9.2006 containing reference for initiation of contempt proceeding under section 2 (c ) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 against Harish Babu Gupta Advocate arrayed as contemnor herein. Upon receipt of reference, it would appear, the matter was processed by the office and initially the matter was referred to Administrative Judge Moradabad who opined that contempt proceedings be instituted in the matter vide comments of Administrative Judge, dated 3.10.2006 which are excerpted below. "May his Lordship like to initiate contempt proceedings in view of conduct of the Advocate at (A).." The matter thereafter went ahead to the end of Hon. Chief Justice who appended his approval vide order dated 19.10.2006 and thereafter, the matter came to be referred to on judicial side and the same was admitted by the Division Bench and notice was issued. The charge was framed by the Bench on 16.1.2007 and served to the contemnor. A brief resume of events leading to submission of report containing Reference made to this Court for initiation of contempt against the contemnor is that on 4.9.2006 while the officer was busy hearing Criminal case No. 436 of 2005 State v. Kushal Pal Singh and in the midst of hearing, when his attention was adverted to the fact that one of the witnesses of the prosecution had come, he ordered the case to be taken up at 12.40 pm. At the given time, when the court was busy recording statement of the witness, the contemnor entered the court room and interrupted the proceeding of the court stating that his case namely, suit no. 3/2006 Smt. Usha Rani v. Jitender be taken up. When the Presiding officer asked him to wait for completion of statement which was in the process of being recorded, the contemnor got annoyed and made certain remarks which tended to scandalize the authority of the court and undermined its dignity. The words uttered by the contemnor are excerpted below. "Apko meri patravali main pahle sunwai karni hogi. Tumeh jaisa Mein Kahtah hun vaisa Karna Padega. Pata nahi kaise High Court Adhikari Ki Niykuti Kar Deta Hai. Mere Naam Se Adhikari Darte Hai. The words uttered by the contemnor are excerpted below. "Apko meri patravali main pahle sunwai karni hogi. Tumeh jaisa Mein Kahtah hun vaisa Karna Padega. Pata nahi kaise High Court Adhikari Ki Niykuti Kar Deta Hai. Mere Naam Se Adhikari Darte Hai. Mera koi kutch nahi bigad sakta hai. Main bahut Shikayati hoon. Mool Vad Sankhya 67/04 Ish Kumar Malhotra vs. uttar Pradesh Raj Vidyut Board Me Tumeh mere Paksh mein Aadesh karna Padega. Aap Anusuchit Jaat Ke Hai. Aap apni Aukat Main Rahe. Pata Nahi Kaise Aap Ki Niyukti Ho Gaye Hai." Sri Kshitij Shailendra, 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 35 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 was an old and infirm person afflicted with many diseases concomitant with old age particularly pointing to the fact that he was a chronic patient of asthma which would be borne out from the certificate attached with the affidavit filed by the deponent. It is also submitted that the events which really happened in the court have been narrated in the affidavit sworn on 16.1.2006 by the contemnor and still, if the court was of the view that the the contemnor was guilty of contempt, it may be taken into consideration that the contemnor was not addicted to using contemptuous language and making scurrilous attacks as it was his first aberration and therefore, he should be purged and should be given a chance to expiate his aberrant behaviour. Here in this case, we are pained and anguished that we have deal with a case involving a lawyer under the Contempt of Court Act. We proceed further with the case indicating to ourselves a piece of advice that the Court should not be over or hypersensitive and should not exercise this jurisdiction on any exaggerated notion of the dignity of the Judges and must act with the dispassionate dignity and decorum which befits the judicial office. We proceed further with the case indicating to ourselves a piece of advice that the Court should not be over or hypersensitive and should not exercise this jurisdiction on any exaggerated notion of the dignity of the Judges and must act with the dispassionate dignity and decorum which befits the judicial office. At the same time it should be borne in mind that the maintenance of dignity of the courts is one of the cardinal principles of rule of law in a free democratic country and when the acts complained of, appear to result in undermining the dignity of the courts and course of justice the same must be held to be repugnant and punished. Before we proceed further, we must observe that the apology is not a protective gear to be used as a shield to protect the contemnor as a last resort. The apology, in order to dilute the gravity of the offence, we must say, should be voluntary, unconditional and indicative of remorse and contrition and it should be tendered at the earliest opportunity. It would be obvious from the record that the contemnor filed affidavit sworn on 16.1.2006 in reply to charge served on him in which he has denied the words attributed to him attended with averment that he neither loosened diatribe against the Presiding officer nor interrupted the proceeding of the court. He also denied that he used offensive words as attributed to him, against the said officer. To sum up, he averred that he did not do any overt or covert act which could be construed to be obstruction in the judicial work. Dwelling on the facts he averred that he appeared as a counsel in suit no. 3/2006 Smt. Usha Rani v. Jitender. In para 3 of the said affidavit, the averment is to the effect that the deponent was an old man and a chronic patient of asthma. Dwelling on the facts he averred that he appeared as a counsel in suit no. 3/2006 Smt. Usha Rani v. Jitender. In para 3 of the said affidavit, the averment is to the effect that the deponent was an old man and a chronic patient of asthma. In para 4, he denied the events in the manner as set out by the officer in the Reference and also in the statement made in this Court and instead gave his own watered down version stating that since he was indisposed on account of ailment of asthma he very humbly requested the presiding officer at a time before recording of statement could commence that in the case in which he was appearing, only application 161/Ga 1 was to be not pressed whereupon the Presiding officer curtly replied that first statement of the witness would be recorded and only thereafter, his case would be taken up. In para 5, he denied to have become furious or used any filthy language. Repudiating the version of the officer, he gave his own version to the effect that it was a usual practice that ailing lawyer was always accommodated and even in the High Court this practice was in vogue where the lawyers are accommodated on a chit of illness attended with utterance that the officer was not inclined to accommodate him despite his illness. He also denied that either he shouted at the court or compelled the officer to pass order on application paper no. 61 C. In para 6 he denied the version given by the officer attended with denial that he caused obstruction in the proceeding of the court or used threatening or menacing words against the presiding officer. He also denied that he used any words verging on any allusion to the caste of the officer. Instead, he referred to the words used by the Presiding officer in the court proceeding which were to the effect that since he belonged to scheduled caste, the contemnor was exerting undue pressure on him and that if his name was prefixed or suffixed with any surname used by a Baniya, the contemnor could have kept mum. Instead, he referred to the words used by the Presiding officer in the court proceeding which were to the effect that since he belonged to scheduled caste, the contemnor was exerting undue pressure on him and that if his name was prefixed or suffixed with any surname used by a Baniya, the contemnor could have kept mum. He admitted to have uttered the words in reply to the words uttered by the officer which according to him were to the effect that while making posting, High Court does not see the caste of any officer and that he had for the first time come to know that the officer belonged to scheduled caste; that he had equal respects for all the officers and that the officer should be kind enough to accommodate the contemnor. In para 7, the contemnor averred that officer seemed to be very sensitive and he took the words uttered by him in reply to the words, to his heart attended with averments that it remained a fact that the officer was not bound to accommodate him. In para 9, he averred that although none of the ingredients of clauses (I), (ii), and (iii) of section 2 (C) were attracted and still if the Court was of the opinion that the contemnor had committed contempt of the court, he tenders his unqualified apology which may kindly be accepted. The contemnor also filed affidavit in reply to charge in which also he reiterated the self same averments as made in the aforesaid affidavit. In para 10, the contemnor referred to the details of two transfer applications filed by the clients of the contemnor whereby the clients of the contemnor sought transfer of respective cases from the court presided over by Sri R.P.Saroj. The first transfer application relates to criminal case no. 2124 of 2004 State v. Narendra Pal and others under section 498 A, 323, 504, 506 IPC in which transfer of the said case was sought on the ground that proceeding conducted by the officer raised apprehension in the mind and she did not expect justice from the said court. In para 12, it is mentioned that the said transfer application was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. In para 12, it is mentioned that the said transfer application was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. In para 13, it is mentioned that the averments made in the affidavit filed by Smt. Surendra Kaur were verified by her on oath and merely because the contemnor was the counsel in the said case, the officer was unhappy and developed ill will against him. In para 14, the contemnor mentioned about the transfer application made for transfer of criminal case no. 1438 of 2002 Ved Prakash v. Kamal and others under section 322, 504, 506 IPC. The said transfer application, it is further mentioned, was made on the ground that the accused was openly declaring that he had cultivated proximity with the employees of the court and this gave rise to apprehension in the his (Ved Prakash) mind that he would not get justice from the said court. In para 15, it is mentioned that the said transfer application was allowed on 22.5.2006 by the District Judge. In para 16, it is mentioned that merely because vakalatnama signed by the contemnor was on the record of the said case, the officer developed ill will suspecting that the contemnor was instigating parties to get the cases transferred. In para 18, it is mentioned that the officer had set up a false case against him and hence the charge as framed by this Court was not made out against him and notice issued to him was liable to be discharged. In para 19, the contemnor again reiterated apology stating that if the Hon. Court was of the opinion that the deponent has committed contempt of the court, he from the core of his heart again submits unconditional unqualified and bonafide apology. The contemnor again filed affidavit in reply to statement recorded by the Court of Sri R.P.Saroj recorded on 23.7.2007. The affidavit was sworn by the contemnor on 9.10.2007. Although this affidavit does not refer to any new facts but is a reiteration of averments as embodied in earlier affidavits which have been discussed in detailed supra, but few of the paragraphs being relevant, need to be referred to. Para 5 of the affidavit being relevant, may be referred to. In this paragraph, the contemnor has mentioned that during conversation between him and the presiding officer, one Ish Kumar Malhotra, plaintiff in original suit no. Para 5 of the affidavit being relevant, may be referred to. In this paragraph, the contemnor has mentioned that during conversation between him and the presiding officer, one Ish Kumar Malhotra, plaintiff in original suit no. 67 of 2004, Ish Kumar Malhotra v. U.P. State Electricity Board was also present. It is further mentioned that the said case was also listed in the court and reference thereof was contained in the order sheet of the criminal case no. 436 of 2005. It is also mentioned that besides the aforesaid Ish Malhotra, two persons namely Kushal Pal Singh and Virpal Singh accused persons in criminal case no. 436 of 2005 state V. Kushal Pal and others were also present and they have filed their respective affidavits and have led their respective evidence. In para 6, the contemnor mentioned the details of proceeding in original suit no. 67 of 2004. In para 8, the contemnor has referred to order dated 4.9.2006 passed by the officer in SCC suit no. 3 of 2006 Usha Rani v. Jitendra Kumar showing that it was mentioned in the order that application paper no. 61 C had not been pressed by the counsel for the defendant and when the case was entertained at 2 p.m the counsel for the plaintiff was absent. It is further mentioned that the contemnor was the counsel for the plaintiff Usha Rani. Further the averments are argumentative and it is stated that when the order itself mentioned that the contemnor was not present in the court, the falsity of contempt proceeding stood established. We have also perused the affidavits filed by Ish Malhotra and two of the accused in criminal cases referred to above pending in the said court. The aforesaid persons denied the incident to have occurred in the manner as alleged by the officer and made averments on the line of what has been averred in the various affidavits filed by the contemnor. The order passed by the officer in Criminal case No. 436 of 2007 is also on record, in which the allegations as reiterated in the Reference are mentioned. The order on the margin bears signature of Veer Pal Singh and Kushalpal Singh. It would also appear that this Court also recorded the statement of Officer R.P.Saroj on 23.7.2007. The order passed by the officer in Criminal case No. 436 of 2007 is also on record, in which the allegations as reiterated in the Reference are mentioned. The order on the margin bears signature of Veer Pal Singh and Kushalpal Singh. It would also appear that this Court also recorded the statement of Officer R.P.Saroj on 23.7.2007. It is deposed on oath by the officer that on 4.9.2009 at about 12.40 p.m. While the court was in the process of hearing in criminal case no. 436 of 2005, the contemnor interrupting the hearing, exerted pressure on him to first call out and take up SCC case no. 3 of 2006 upon which he (Officer) conveyed to the contemnor that his case would be taken up after the hearing of the present case was over. When the contemnor was told that the "not press" application given by the defendant had been disallowed, he got annoyed and remarked that the officer would have to take up the matter and that the officer has to abide by what the contemnor says to him further stating that how the High Court appoints such an officer. He also stated that the contemnor insulted him depicting the words uttered by him that he belonged to scheduled caste and thus he obstructed the court proceeding. When the contemnor did not stop, it is further deposed, he (Officer) retired to the chamber at 1.25 p.m. The officer was also cross examined by the contemnor but nothing appears to have been elicited from his cross examination to the advantage of the contemnor. In the cross examination, the officer was also cross examined in relation to transfer application. The officer in relation to transfer application stated that he came to know about the transfer application but in both the transfer applications, no comments were called for from him. He denied the suggestion that he was annoyed with the contemnor as he (contemnor) was behind moving of transfer application against him. He also denied the suggestion that the contemnor sought early hearing stating that he was a chronic patient of asthma or that the contemnor ever spoke to the court that he was not pressing his application. He also denied that contemnor was not involved in any earlier contempt proceeding. He also denied the suggestion that the contemnor sought early hearing stating that he was a chronic patient of asthma or that the contemnor ever spoke to the court that he was not pressing his application. He also denied that contemnor was not involved in any earlier contempt proceeding. Here, it would suffice to say, we are concerned with the issue whether the contemnor has committed contempt of court or not. Even if it be assumed that the contemnor wanted early hearing of his case on account of his ill health, it cannot be assumed that the contemnor was at liberty to have bandied words with the court while it was in the midst of hearing of another case. It is clearly borne out and there is no denying of the fact that the contemnor made mention while the court was in the midst of hearing of another case and hence in the circumstances, there can be no justification that since the court did not accommodate him, the contemnor entered into arguments with the court. It is settled by various decisions that the counsel has to be careful in taking responsibility for the representation he makes on behalf of his client to the court. The above narration would go to show that the contemnor denied the allegations and referred to various documents and affidavits of the clients and accused appearing on that day in other cases and were stated to be present in the court. The contemnor admitted his presence and also about the mention made to the court in his case but denied to have uttered the words as contained in the reference made to this Court. He has submitted his own watered down version and referred to two transfer applications made against the officer by certain clients and since the officer suspected the contemnor behind moving of transfer application, he was annoyed and ultimately, set up the false case of contempt against him. It would thus crystallize that the contemnor throughout the contempt proceeding took inconsistent stand and blew hot and cold in the same breath. On one hand he contested the allegations to the fullest and shifted the blame on the officer ostensibly for retorting in the words as contained in the various affidavits filed by him. It would thus crystallize that the contemnor throughout the contempt proceeding took inconsistent stand and blew hot and cold in the same breath. On one hand he contested the allegations to the fullest and shifted the blame on the officer ostensibly for retorting in the words as contained in the various affidavits filed by him. He also propped up the allegations by filing various documents and at one stage, demanded to cross examine the officer and ultimately, cross examined the officer at length and on the other hand, he tendered the apology as a last resort in the event of this Court finding him guilty of having committed contempt of court. There could not be both justification and apology in the same breath. Before we proceed further, we would like to quip here that 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 which the very constitutional scheme and public faith in the judiciary would run the risk of being eroded. Since the contemnor is an Advocate, the matter requires to be considered with a little more seriousness. An Advocate, we feel called to say, is not not exempt from ordinary disability which the law imposes and his position is not inviolable and his privileges cannot extend to interfere with the administration of justice. On the other hand he is expected to help in sub-serving the course of justice and not impede it in any manner. A legal practitioner has no doubt his duties towards his client but at the same time he has equally important duty and obligation upon him to cooperate with the court in the orderly and pure administration of justice. Any departure would be construed to be violative and neglecting his duties and obligations. A lawyer is a person educated and trained in law. The use of language has to be balanced and in fitness of things within the framework of the law of the land. He cannot and should not be reckless in use of language. There are barriers which must be known to a lawyer and it should not be crossed. He should not overstep the limits of decency and ethics in the matter of his behavior towards the court. He cannot and should not be reckless in use of language. There are barriers which must be known to a lawyer and it should not be crossed. He should not overstep the limits of decency and ethics in the matter of his behavior towards the court. In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujrat, (1991) 4 SCC 406 , the Apex Court held as under. " The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person which would 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." In N.B.Sanghvi v. 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. 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. 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." As stated supra, the contemnor has denied to have uttered those words in court. It brooks no dispute that as to the incident that happened in court, the version of presiding officer is entitled to pre-eminence and obvious acceptance and only in rarest case it may be disregarded. Nothing has been brought on record to warrant the belief that the contemnor has been made a scape goat merely because the officer suspected that the contemnor bore hands in moving of transfer applications for transfer of cases from his court. There is no denying of the fact that the contemnor wanted court to accommodate him on account of his illness and the request, it brooks no dispute from the record, was made in the midst of hearing or recording of statement in another case. He also admitted that the court was not bound to accommodate him. There is no denying of the fact that there were exchanges of words between the court and the contemnor. He also admitted that the court was not bound to accommodate him. There is no denying of the fact that there were exchanges of words between the court and the contemnor. From the facts on record, it crystallizes that the contemnor exerted undue pressure which obstructed recording of statement of witness in another case. The law is settled that if a lawyer thinks he has a just grievance or cause against the Magistrate or the Judge, he could make a representation to the authority superior to such Magistrate or Judge against his conduct. However, it is not open to him to take liberty of entering into arguments and disturb the hearing or court proceeding in the midst of hearing of another case. The lawyer being trained in law cannot be said to be unaware of the aura attached to the court. Such conduct on the part of a lawyer indubitably falls within the realm of contempt of the court. A Judge or Magistrate has a duty to discharge his/her judicial functions and he/she passes order in the manner as he/she likes fit to the best of his/her capability in the facts and circumstances of the case. The courts cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders. 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 Presiding officer. 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 courts. In the above conspectus, the charge related to criminal contempt framed against the contemnor is fully established. In the above conspectus, we have no hesitation to say that the charges of criminal contempt established against a practising lawyer cannot be taken lightly who carries the trapping of an officer of the Court whose duty is to assist the Court and uphold the majesty of law and dignity of the person manning the court. No judicial system can tolerate such ignoble act and conduct of a practising Advocate. The crucial question that remains is what would be the appropriate punishment to the contemnor. No judicial system can tolerate such ignoble act and conduct of a practising Advocate. The crucial question that remains is what would be the appropriate punishment to the contemnor. In connection with whether the apology commends itself for acceptance or not, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Preetam Pal v. High Court M.P. 1993 (1) SCC 529 in which the Apex Court observed as under: "To punish an advocate for contempt of court, no doubt must be regarded as an extreme measure, but to preserve the proceedings of the courts from being deflected or interfered with, and to keep the streams of justice pure, serene and undefiled, it becomes the duty of the court though painful to punish the contemnor in order to preserve its dignity. No one can claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt if his act or conduct in relation to court or court proceedings interferes with is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice." In L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., [1984] 3 SCC 405, the Apex Court described the apology as a 'paper apology and refused to accept it in the following words: "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 fact 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 fear of being scandalized and persecuted by an advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations if the Judge goes against his wishes. And no sitting judge will feel free to decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on account of 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 fail 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." In the above perspective, it cannot be ruled out that the contemnor set up the watered down version in order to save his skin. In this view of the matter, the apology offered does not commend to us for acceptance and it is turned down. Reverting to the case in hand, we are of the firm opinion that the apology tendered by the contemnor does not exude bona fide or manifest genuineness ostensibly for the reasons that the apology has been tendered at a stage when the contemnor sensed that his goose was cooked. As stated supra, in vindication of his stand, he refers to various documents and also brought on record the affidavits of the clients and even accused in criminal cases and also cross examined the officer at prolix length. He also tried to justify his conversation with the court for disinclination to oblige him. 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 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. The courts have to perform judicial functions in responsible yet disagreeable ambiance and they require utmost protection. The attack made on presiding officers disparaging in character and derogatory to his/her dignity would vitally shake the confidence of the public in him/her. The courts have to perform judicial functions in responsible yet disagreeable ambiance and they require utmost protection. The attack made on presiding officers disparaging in character and derogatory to his/her dignity would vitally shake the confidence of the public in him/her. The vitriolic attacks made on the officer 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. If an Advocate uses the vile of browbeating the Presiding officer by his toxic vitriolic attack, it is indeed disquieting and should not be viewed with equanimity. In the above perspective, it cannot be ruled out that the contemnor set up the entire theory in order to save his skin. In this view of the matter, the apology offered does not commend to us for acceptance and it is turned down. In the above conspectus, the reference made to this Court is allowed and the contemnor Harish Babu Gupta is held guilty of criminal contempt. We accordingly convict him under section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs 20,000/-. In default, it may be prescribed, the contemnor 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 on 10.5.2010 for ensuring compliance.