Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 492 (ALL)

IN RE: v. DIGVIJAI SINGH PAL

2010-02-05

IMITYAZ MURTAZA, S.S.TIWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT S.S. TIWARI, J. – Present proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has its genesis in the Reference dated 17.4.2007 made by Sri Budhdhi Sagar Mishra, Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur which was duly forwarded by the District Judge, Hamirpur vide letter dated 18.4.2007 whereby the matter has been commended for initiation of contempt proceeding against Digvijai Singh Pal Advocate Civil Court, Hamirpur for the tipsy conduct in the Court. The sequence of events as embodied in the Reference is that on 17.4.2007 while the Court was transacting judicial business and was in the process of recording the statement of witness Jai Narain Singh in Case No. 225/11-2006 Smt. Sumitra v. Satyendra Kumar under section 125, Cr.P.C., P.S. Sumerpur, the contemnor attended the Court and at the relevant time, he was heavily drunk and he began shouting and created ruckus in the Court in drunken stupor and this disrupted the Court proceeding and the statement could not be recorded. This fact, it is stated, was reduced to writing in the order sheet of the case. 2. Upon receipt of reference, it would appear, the matter was processed by the office and initially: the matter was referred to Administrative Judge, Hamirpur and thereafter, the file was placed before Hon. Chief Justice who appended approval. Pursuant to approval by Hon. Chief Justice, the matter came to be referred to on judicial side. The notice was issued by the Division Bench consisting of Hon. M. Chaudhary and Hon. S.K. Jain, JJ. vide order dated 10.3.2008. The charge was framed and served to the contemnor on 9.12.2009. 3. Sri. R.C. Pal, Advocate, appearing for the contemnor did not argue on merits and instead, invoked the compassion of the Court for accepting the unqualified apology which the contemnor, it is stated, has already tendered. He prayed for lenient view stating that the contemnor has been practising law for quite a long period without here being any room for complaint from any of the Courts 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 stature. To prop up his submission invoking compassion, the learned Counsel submitted that the contemnor is not addicted to drinking and should be given a chance to expiate his aberrant behaviour. To prop up his submission invoking compassion, the learned Counsel submitted that the contemnor is not addicted to drinking and should be given a chance to expiate his aberrant behaviour. Here in this case, we are pained that we have to deal with a case involving a lawyer under the Contempt of Courts Act. We proceed further with the case with the piece of advice to ourselves 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 Court is the protector of public justice. 4. Prior to submitting unqualified apology, the contemnor had filed affidavit sworn on 13th August, 2009. We have glanced through the said affidavit. In the affidavit, he denied the occurrence and set out a completely different theme. In para 4, he stated that in Criminal Misc. Application No. 238/11 of 2006 Mohan Singh, the referring officer had passed orders on an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C leaning in favour of registration and investigation but subsequently, the order was mutated to the extent resulting in rejection of application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. When this fact was borne in on him, he made a written complaint addressed to Hon. Chief Justice on 28.9.2006 which he has annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit. In para 6 it is averred that as a sequel thereto, the referring Magistrate set up the theme of disturbing the Court proceeding while the Court was in the process of recording of statement in case 225/11 of 2006. In para 7, it is averred that when the contemnor came to know about the reference made against him, he contacted the lawyer namely Awadhesh Naresh Chandel appearing in Case No. 225/11 of 2006, who, it is stated, filed affidavit the substance of which is that during the proceeding of his case, the contemnor neither appeared in Court nor created any nuisance. Copy of the affidavit of Sri Awadesh Naresh Chandel Advocate has been annexed as Annexure No.4. Copy of the affidavit of Sri Awadesh Naresh Chandel Advocate has been annexed as Annexure No.4. It is averred in the said affidavit by the deponent namely Sri Chandel that the contemnor was his junior and that the referring officer was annoyed with him on account of complaint made by the contemnor against him. It is not denied in the affidavit that the contemnor was not present in the Court. In para 8, the contemnor referred to affidavit filed by Sri Chandra Bhushan Pal Advocate who was appearing for applicant in the said case. The said lawyer, it is stated, also denied appearance of contemnor or any nuisance in drunken stupor having been created by him in the course of proceeding. However, it clearly transpires from the averments that the contemnor being junior to the deponent was present in the Court. The said affidavit has been annexed as Annexure No.5. In para 9, it is averred that the reference has been made by the referring officer actuated by malice against him as a sequel to complaint which he had made against him to the High Court. 5. It would thus transpire that the contemnor initially contested the reference fiercely and subsequently, finding that he might be hauled up under Contempt of Courts Act, he submitted unqualified apology. Be that as it may, the learned Counsel appearing for him did not argue on merit and repeatedly, pleaded for lenient view in the matter. 6. In the light of denial by the contemnor of the events as set out in the Reference, we feel called to examine whether the occurrence as stated had at all occurred in the Court. The contemnor has referred to complaint made by him to Hon. Chief Justice on 28.9.2006 and he alludes the present contempt proceeding as a sequel to the complaint made by him against the officer. The complaint admittedly was made on 28.9.2006 while the reference made to this Court is dated 17.4.2007. Even if it be assumed that the complaint was made to the annoyance of the referring officer, the intervening period, in our considered opinion, is too long as to leave any traces of prejudices rankling in the mind of the referring officer. The complaint admittedly was made on 28.9.2006 while the reference made to this Court is dated 17.4.2007. Even if it be assumed that the complaint was made to the annoyance of the referring officer, the intervening period, in our considered opinion, is too long as to leave any traces of prejudices rankling in the mind of the referring officer. The substance of averments made in the affidavit of Sri Awadhesh Naresh Chandel that the contemnor was junior to Sri Awadhesh Naresh Chandel Advocate and that on the relevant date he did not create any ruckus in the Court nor interfered with the working of the Court. He has not denied the presence of the contemnor in the Court at the relevant time. In so far as complaint is concerned, copy of the complaint has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit sworn and filed by the contemnor in this Court. From a close scrutiny, it would transpire that there is nothing on record to show that the complaint was at all sent to the High Court or it was acted upon by the High Court and with what result. Usually, in case the complaint is entertained, the same is processed at various levels and comments are called for from the officer and the complainant is intimated about the result. Nothing has been brought on record to prove that the complaint was made to the High Court, further there is no indicium on record whether there was any exchange of correspondence between the High Court on administrative side and the complainant. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the reasons assigned for making reference appears to be too trivial and tenuous and also considering that in such matters, version of the referring officer is entitled to pre-eminence. Therefore, the plea that the officer was prejudiced on account of complaint made against him by the contemnor does not commend to us for acceptance. 7. Therefore, the plea that the officer was prejudiced on account of complaint made against him by the contemnor does not commend to us for acceptance. 7. Regard being had to the various affidavits filed alongwith the affidavit under scrutiny and also considering that the contemnor is not alleged to have uttered any derogatory or disparaging remarks against the presiding officer or that he indulged in mud slinging and all that is stated in the Reference made to this Court is that the contemnor entered the Court room and in drunken stupor, created ruckus, while holding him guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, we are of the view that a lenient view is called for in the matter. 8. 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 behaviour for a period of one year from today. The District Judge' Hamirpur 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. It is Ordered Accordingly.