Imtiyaz Murtaza, J. - 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. 2. 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. on 22.5.2009 and their bodies were recovered from the car which was found abandoned near the Bridge of Hin-don 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. It is further alleged that all the three Judges of this Court have been amenable to the wishes of Sri V.P. Srivas-tava, Senior Advocate of this Court and on account of clout of the aforesaid V.P. Sri-vastava, the Judges of this Court have admitted the accused to bail. 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. 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 con-temnor 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. 3. 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 v. State of U.P., 20782 of 2009 Badruddin v. State of U.P. and 20783 of 2009 Mehraj v. 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 contemnors 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 contemnors 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. 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 started 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 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. 6. 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.KJain has taken responsibility to get the above accused bailed out. 6. That an unidentified source has in­formed the applicant's 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. 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." 7. 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 & Ses­sions Judge respectively. Hon. Jus­tice Mr. S.K. Jain was also posted at Meerut as Additional District & 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. 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 Riz-wan 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. Hon. Justice V.K. Verma has granted bails to two accused namely Riz-wan 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" 8. 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 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 alongwith 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. 9. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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, CJ in R v. Gray and of Alord Atkin in Andre Paul Terence Ambard v. At­torney General, Lord Denning M.R. In Morris v. Crown Office, Frankfurter in Offutt v. U.S. In Jennison v. 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 Court's 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." 11. 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." 11. In Asha Ram M. Jain v. 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 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. 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. 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." 12. 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. 13. 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. 13. The foundation of judicial system which is founded on the independence and impartiality of those v ho 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, 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". 14. 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. 14. 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 con-temnor is fully established. 15. 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. 16. 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 v. State of U.P., 1984 Cr.LJ 993 = 1984 (21) ACC 300 (SC) 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 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 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." 17. Likewise, 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. 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 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." 18. 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 con-triteness on his part but is used as a device to screen himself from the rigours of law. 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 y£t 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 Courts have to perform judicial func­tions in responsible y£t 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. It needs hardly be said that immediately after expiry of sixty days in case no stay order is furnished by the contemnor, he wouid be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence immediately. 21. The matter shall be listed before this Court in the second week of May 2010 ensuring compliance. Reference Allowed..