JUDGMENT IMTIYAZ MURTAZA and S.S. TIWARI, JJ.-The contempt proceeding in the instant case has its genesis in the Reference made by Sri Arvind Misra, Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Farrukhabad vide letter dated 10/9.5.2007 whereby the officer has referred the matter to this Court for initiation a of contempt proceeding against Brij Kishore Misra, Advocate Farrukhabad. According to the allegations contained in the Reference made to this Court, in a pending original suit No. 343 of 1997, the defendant had filed documentary evidence on 9.5.2007 for being admitted on record of the aforesaid suit. One of the Counse1 for the plaintiff namely Rakesh Kumar Saxena, prayed for filing objection and acceding to his request, the Court fixed 29.5.2007 for objection and disposal thereof. The contemnor namely, Brij Kishore Misra, who was appearing as a second Counsel in the aforesaid case, came to the Court in a jiffy and yelled at the Court in a phraseology which was undignified, and had the effect of scandalizing the Court in relation to its judicial functioning undermining dignity and was an affront to the majesty of law. 2. Referring to his further scandalous action, the District Judge Farrukhabad reported that on 10.5.2007, while he was in the process of hearing the Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2007, the contemnor entered the Court room in a jiffy and obstructed the hearing by complaining against a Civil Judge posted in that Judgeship without naming him alleging that the officer had asked his client to change• the lawyer. On being queried, the contemnor did not disclose the name of the officer. However, the District Judge tried to smooth. over the matter and asked him to give in writing whatever grievance, he had against the officer that be. Instead of mellowing down, the contemnor shouted saying that the District Judge would not initiate any action as he was acquainted with his (District Judge) way of working and that he would move appropriate application against him to Adhivakta Sangh (Advocate Association). Hearing this, the District Judge asked him to leave the Court as he was interrupting the judicial proceeding and undermining the dignity of the Court upon which the contemnor collected mob outside the Court and indulged in slogan shouting against the District Judge. Hearing this, the District Judge asked him to leave the Court as he was interrupting the judicial proceeding and undermining the dignity of the Court upon which the contemnor collected mob outside the Court and indulged in slogan shouting against the District Judge. On 25.6.2007, upon a note of the office, the Administrative Judge Farrukhabad passed the following order : “ Approved and let it be placed before the Hon. Chief Justice/Senior Vacation Judge." On 20.2.2008, Hon. Chief Justice appended his approval for listing it before the appropriate Bench dealing with criminal contempt proceeding. Sri Satish Trivedi Sr. Advocate appeared for the contemnor and pleaded for merciful view in the matter. On being called upon to argue the case on merit of the case, he referred to unqualified apology stating that the contemnor has already tendered the unqualified apology and prayed for discharge taking a lenient view urging that the contemnor was fairly senior having already put in 30 years of practice attended with further submission that he can not be said to be addicted to using contemptuous language and making scurrilous attacks nor is there any previous instance of his showing disrespect to the Court and whatever has happened in Court was in a spontaneity. Ultimately, he stated that he should be given a chance to expiate his unruly conduct. 3. We are pained that we have to deal with a case involving a lawyer again under the Contempt of Court Act. We however indicate to ourselves the piece of advice that the Court while dealing with contempt matter 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 taking a dispassionate view of the entire matter. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the Court is the protector of public justice and it has a stake in the dignity and protection of those who man the Court. We would also 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. We would also 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. 4. We have gleaned the counter affidavit filed by the contemnor very carefully and also the rejoinder affidavits filed in reply to counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, to begin with, the contenmor raised the plea that the contempt proceeding initiated against him is time barred. In para 7 of the counter affidavit, the contemnor has averred that whatever had happened, had been settled amicably on 11.5.2007 on the intercession of Advocate Association Farrukhabad. In Para 8, it is stated that despite settlement, the District Judge extended threats to him and present contempt proceeding is a sequel to that threat. In para 9, he averred that initiation of contempt proceeding against him notwithstanding settlement at the intervention of the local bar is nothing but a breach of trust. The averments made in para 10 are argumentative inasmuch as he stated that the contempt proceeding initiated against him is not intended to protect the Judges personally and it is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected. In para 13 it is averred that the acts of the judicial officers concerned were intended to scandalize the personality of the contemnor anti tended to lower his (contemnor) reputation in public esteem. In para 17, he charged the judicial officer namely Arvind Mishra that he (Officer) called his client and advised him to change the Counsel in his own (client) interest. In para 18, he stated that he made a complaint against the officer to the District Judge while he was in chamber but he declined to take cognizance of the same and rather threatened him with dire consequence. In para 18, he stated that he made a complaint against the officer to the District Judge while he was in chamber but he declined to take cognizance of the same and rather threatened him with dire consequence. He also referred to affidavit of his client namely Brahmanand in which the real facts and circumstances are revealed. In next paras i.e. paras 28 to 36, he appears to have set up a counter case stating that the District Judge ousted him from the Court and that the acts of judicial officers in question amount to contempt and they are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Court Act. It would thus transpire that at no stage in the counter affidavit, there is apology worth the name much-less unqualified apology evincing his real contriteness or repentance or consciousness of a wrong done, of injury inflicted and the earnest desire to make reparation. Excepting this counter affidavit, there is nothing on record having complexion of an apology tendered by the contemnor. It is at this belated stage that the contemnor expressed oral apology through his Counsel though he was present. From the counter affidavit, it leaves no manner of doubt that the contemnor made all out efforts to put the blame on the officers and did not seem to be repentant for his acts which scandalized the Court and undermined the dignity in the public estimation. At one stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the contemnor beckoned to him to speak and at his behest, he spoke that he should be forgiven. 5. 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 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. An Advocate, we feel called to say, is 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 co-operate 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 the 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 behaviour towards the Court. 6. In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, 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." 7. In N.R Sanphvi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 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. 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. 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." The precise words attributed to the contemnor to have been uttered in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Farrukhabad are quoted below: "Aap Ne Kyafarman Jari Kar Diya Hai. Their sacrifice would go waste if we are not jealous to protect the fair name of the judiciary from unwarranted attacks on its independence." The precise words attributed to the contemnor to have been uttered in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Farrukhabad are quoted below: "Aap Ne Kyafarman Jari Kar Diya Hai. Aap Kaya Hain, Main Aapko Is Patravali Par Kalam Chalane Laik Nahi Chorunga." Thereafter, the contemnor proceeded to the Court of District Judge and interrupted the judicial proceeding there uttering the following words: “Aap Koi Karyavahi Nahin Kama Chahte Aur Main Aapke Krityon Se Wakif Hun Aur Main Adhivakta Sangh Main Ajakar Prarthana Patra Doonga." 8. The contemnor, as would transpire from the averments made in the counter affidavit sworn by him, has denied to have uttered those words in Court and instead, remorselessly set up a counter case stating that by asking him to go out the Court, the District Judge has committed contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act. 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 was repentant or showed real contriteness at any stage during the proceeding except at the last stage of the proceeding when he expressed his oral apology that too, through his Counsel. He also set up a false defence in para 36 of the counter affidavit that "the acts of judicial officers are itself under the circumstances of the Criminal Contempt under Article 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1970 and the same is liable to be punished under the provisions of the Act." 9. Both the officers namely Sri Sarvesh Pandey, the then District Judge Farukhabad and Sri Arvind Mishra, the then Civil Judge G.D.) Farrukhabad have filed their respective affidavits in which they have vehemently denied the allegations. They also denied the allegations that the contemnor was threatened at any stage as alleged. Sri Arvind Misra also denied the allegations that he advised the client of the contemnor to change the client at any stage. It was also denied that any settlement was tried or brought about on the intervention of Advocate Association. They also denied the allegations that the contemnor was threatened at any stage as alleged. Sri Arvind Misra also denied the allegations that he advised the client of the contemnor to change the client at any stage. It was also denied that any settlement was tried or brought about on the intervention of Advocate Association. The District Judge, also denied that the contemnor met him in the Chamber instead of Court and in this connection, he referred to signatures of Advocates on the order sheet. The incident, 4 it is also averred, was recorded in the order sheet of Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2007. It is also averred that the contemnor had tried to obtain favourable orders and when the officer did not succumbed to pressure tactics, he was intimidated. It is quite possible that after he indulged in scurrilous attack, on instinct of self preservation, he set up the counter plea of scandalizing his personality and lower his reputation in public esteem in order to screen himself against possible action. Although he sought permission in one of his affidavits cited above to produce certain witnesses, but at this stage, he tendered oral unqualified apology without insisting on his demand to examine certain witnesses named in the counter affidavit. 10. A Judge or Magistrate 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. 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. 11. 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. 11. 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. 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 of M.P., 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." 12. In L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P. 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. 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. 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." 13. 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. As stated supra, from the sequence of events, it is quite natural that he indulged in scurrilous attack. He has admitted that he drew attention of the Court to the circulars of the High Court when the Court was busy hearing the case. Although he denied to have uttered the words attributed to him but in totality of circumstances, it does appear to us that he must have uttered those words and in order to screen himself against possible action, he as a last resort, tendered unqualified apology. 14. 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 has referred to settlement brought about between him and the District Judge due to intervention of the Bar Association. As stated supra, in vindication of his stand, he has referred to settlement brought about between him and the District Judge due to intervention of the Bar Association. Besides this, he has set up a defence that by their acts, the judicial officers concerned have committed contempt• and are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. There is no apology on record and whatever apology he has tendered is the oral apology through his counsel. It is in this conspectus, we feel compelled to say that the oral 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. 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. 15. In the above conspectus, the reference made to this Court is allowed and the contemnor Brij Kishore Misra, Advocate is held guilty of criminal contempt. In this view of the matter, the apology offered does not commend to us for acceptance and it is turned down. 15. In the above conspectus, the reference made to this Court is allowed and the contemnor Brij Kishore Misra, Advocate is held guilty of criminal contempt. We accordingly convict him under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default, it may be prescribed, 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 in the second week of May 2010 for ensuring compliance. Ordered Accordingly.