Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.:- The con­tempt proceeding in the instant case has its genesis in the Reference made by Sri Om Prakash Dixit, Special Judge, Etawah vide letter dated 19.1.2007 which was duly for­warded by District Judge vide letter dated 20.1.2007 whereby reference has been made to this Court for initiation of contempt pro­ceeding against the contemnor namely Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan Advocate Civil Court Etawah. 2. According to the facts contained in ref­erence made to this Court, on 12.1.2007 at 10.35 a.m when the Court was busy record­ing the statement in a final enquiry No. 6 F/2006 State v. Rakesh Kumar Saxena, the con­temnor advocate interrupted the proceeding and insisted with the officer to send for the file and his case be got called out forthwith. When the officer asked him to wait for the proceeding to end, upon which he became furious and in terrorem, remarked which if translated into English would read that per­haps the officer was not aware as to what would happen if the request of the contemnor was not immediately attended to. It is further mentioned in the reference that again the contemnor came to the court at 11.20 a.m and perused the order sheet of Special Case No. 693 of 2004 and burst out angrily using words couched in derogatory and undignified language which if translated in English would agreeably read that the contemnor had set right even the most intractable Judges and the officer stands no where qua them. It is fur­ther mentioned that the contemnor again came to the court at 12.30 p.m and moved an ap­plication whereupon the court passed the or­der thereon. When the contemnor read the contents of the order, he again became furi­ous and remarked which if translated in En­glish would agreeably read that he would make such a strong complaint that the officer would remember for all time to come. In the reference, previous incidents of unruly con­duct of the contemnor in the court of the then Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Etawah presided over by Sri Rajiv Kumar, contained in letter dated 14.11.2003, in the court of the then Civil Judge (S.D.) presided over by Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta contained in letter dated 5.4.2005, in the court of then the Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Etawah presided over by Sri Rajiv Kumar, contained in letter dated 14.11.2003, in the court of the then Civil Judge (S.D.) presided over by Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta contained in letter dated 5.4.2005, in the court of then the Addl. District Judge pre­sided over by Sri S.P.Singh and also the no­tice issued to him on 18.8.2006 under section 228 I.P.C., in the court of Special Judge (B.C. Act) presided over by Sri O.P. Dixit vide letter dated 12.1.2007, in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) presided over by Sri Mohd. Rafi vide letter dated 16.2.2007, Vigilance Bureau enquiry No. 28 of 2002 in which no­tice was issued by the High Court dated 22.3.2003 and 22.5.2003 and the letter dated 20.1.2008 written by contemnor to the High Court in which he has prayed for not initiating any action on the complaints against him. 3. On 30.4.2007, upon a note of the office the Administrative Judge Etawah passed the following orders. "I have seen the report/complaint of the Special Judge (E.G. Act) Etawah, note of the office and other documents on record. It ap­pears that the special Judge (E.G. Act), Etawah was recording the statement of a witness in a case when Sri Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, Ad­vocate entered the court room and interfered with the judicial proceedings. I have carefully gone through the record and, in my opinion, the alleged actions of Sri Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, Advocate, can be defined as 'Con­tempt of Court' within the meaning of sec­tion 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Prima facie there is sufficient material to proceed against him under the said Act. Let appropriate proceedings be initiated against Sri Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, Advo­cate for his alleged acts under the Contempt of Courts Act." 4. Thereafter, the matter came to be put up before Hon. Chief Justice and on 25.5.2009 the Chief Justice approved the opinion of the Administrative Judge. 5. Sri S.S. Upadhaya, learned counsel ap­peared for the contemnor and pleaded for merciful view in the matter. Thereafter, the matter came to be put up before Hon. Chief Justice and on 25.5.2009 the Chief Justice approved the opinion of the Administrative Judge. 5. Sri S.S. Upadhaya, learned counsel 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 further urging that the contemnor was fairly senior having been en­rolled as Advocate in the year 1979 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. 6. We are anguished that we have to deal with a case involving a lawyer again under the Contempt of Courts 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. It is the settled principles that the rule of contempt is not to be lightly invoked and is not to be used as a cloak to cow down somebody into submission on the basis of fancied claim. It is intended to offer protection to the court itself or to a party in judicial proceeding whose interest may be affected or the authority of the court is low­ered and the confidence of the people in the administration of justice is weakened. 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. 7. 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. 7. 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. 8. In the affidavit filed by the contemnor alongwith application seeking discharge, the contemnor in para 3 has set out the life sketch stating that he was enrolled as Advocate in the year 1979 and he has never been involved in any contempt case. In Para 5 of the affida­vit, it is averred that he had drawn attention of the court that at one time, the officer should do only one work as at that time, the Reader was recording statement and the officer was busy hearing cases. In paras 7 and 8, he has divulged the details as to what happened in the matter resulting in launching of criminal proceeding against him. In paras 9 and 10, the contemnor has dwelt upon the details of the proceeding initiated by the Bar Council on the basis of complaint. In para 12 of the affidavit, the contemnor has referred to cir­cular of this Court in which it is postulated that the statement should be recorded by the Presiding Officer and not by the Reader. In para 13, the contemnor has alleged that the reference has been made by the officer with ulterior motive to harass him. In para 14, it is averred that in case the Court is of the opin­ion that the contemnor is guilty of Contempt of Court Act, he seeks unconditional apol­ogy with the assertion that he will not repeat the alleged misconduct in future. 9. In para 14, it is averred that in case the Court is of the opin­ion that the contemnor is guilty of Contempt of Court Act, he seeks unconditional apol­ogy with the assertion that he will not repeat the alleged misconduct in future. 9. In the affidavit filed by the contemnor in reply to the affidavit sworn by Om Prakash Dixit, the Presiding Officer of the Court, he refuted each and every allegations levelled against him stating that the allegations have been made out of malice and just to malign him. He has either denied the existence of any complaint imputing to him scandalous acts or tried to explain in which such com­plaints or orders were rendered. In totality, he has alleged that the presiding officer was prejudiced towards him and despite all sort of arrogance and provocations from the side of Presiding Officer, he always remained po­lite submissive and courteous honouring the dignity of the court (vide para 4 of the counter affidavit sworn on 19th Sept 2007). 10. The crux of the entire episode is that this fact is admitted that while the court was busy hearing the cases and the Reader was busy recording the statements of the wit­nesses, he interrupted the proceeding of the court demurring to the fact that at one time, two proceedings were going on in the court and that he also adverted attention of the Pre­siding Officer to the circular of the High Court in which it is clearly postulated that the state­ment of witnesses should be recorded in the handwriting of the presiding officer. The pres­ence of the contemnor at the time of incident does indicate that he must have gone there in connection with his case and he must have interrupted the proceedings by asking the court to take up his case as alleged in the ref­erence. Now the question arises whether the contemnor could interrupt the proceeding of the court even if the proceeding of the court interfered with any direction of the High court issued on administrative side. It brooks no dispute that the court was busy hearing the cases as admitted by the contemnor himself. Then the question arises whether the contem­nor was justified in interfering with the proceeding which by all reckoning was judicial proceeding. It brooks no dispute that the court was busy hearing the cases as admitted by the contemnor himself. Then the question arises whether the contem­nor was justified in interfering with the proceeding which by all reckoning was judicial proceeding. Even assuming that the court was acting contrary to the direction issued by the High Court on administrative side, it was not open to the contemnor to have interfered with the judicial proceeding. It is stated at various places in his affidavit by the contemnor that he adverted attention of the court to the di­rections contained in circular issued by the High Court as an officer of the court. The contemnor is a lawyer and trained in law. He has certain duties towards the court bearing in mind the dignity and prestige of the court. The sequence of events given by the contem­nor itself raises a natural inference that at the time of incident, the contemnor must have interrupted the proceedings of the court and uttered words as complained of in the Refer­ence. The contempt becomes graver when the contemnor is an Advocate- well trained in law and acquainted with the niceties and intrica­cies of legal proceeding and the aura and majesty of law court. 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. 11. 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. 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 subserving the course of justice and not impede it in any manner. A legal practitioner has no doubt his duties to wards 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 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 behavior towards the court. 12. In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujrat, (1991) 4 SCC 406 : ( AIR 1991 SC 2176 ), 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." 13. In N.B. Sanghvi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (1991) 3 SCC 600 : ( AIR 1991 SC 1834 ) 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. 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." 14. Their sacrifice would go waste if we are not jealous to protect the fair name of the judiciary from unwarranted attacks on its independence." 14. The precise words attributed to the contemnor to have been uttered in the court may be quoted below. "Abhi Jante Nahi Ho, Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan Se Kahne Ke Agrah Na Man Ne Ka Kya Phal Hota Hai" Thereafter, the contemnor again came back to the court at 11.20 a.m and uttered the fol­lowing words. "Maine Bade Bade, Jajon Ko Fit Kar Diya Hai Aap Kya Cheez Hai." Again, the contemnor is stated to have returned at 12.30 p.m and uttered the follow­ing words. "Aise Shikayat Karoonga Ki Jeevan Bhar Yaad Rakhega." 15. The contemnor, as would transpire from the averments made in the affidavit sworn by him, has denied to have uttered those words in court and instead, remorse­lessly set out his own version stating that he adverted attention of the court to the circular issued by the High Court as the presiding of­ficer was busy hearing the cases while the Reader of the Court was recording the state­ment of the witnesses. 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. 16. The officer namely Om Prakash Dixit has filed affidavit in which he has vehemently denied the allegations. He has also denied that he entertained any prejudices against the con­temnor or that he made reference against him actuated by malice against him. He also de­nied the allegations that the contemnor was threatened at any stage as alleged. He also stated that the contemnor was issued notice under section 228 Cr.P.C. The officer has also referred to his aberrant behaviour indulged in by him in other courts and has given de­tails of the proceeding initiated against him. 17. As stated supra, from the sequence of events, it is quite natural that he indulged in scurrilous attack. He also stated that the contemnor was issued notice under section 228 Cr.P.C. The officer has also referred to his aberrant behaviour indulged in by him in other courts and has given de­tails of the proceeding initiated against him. 17. 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. 18. The foundation of judicial system which is founded on the independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the Presiding judicial offic­ers 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 presiding judge and brings disgrace to the fair name of the judiciary. 19. 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 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 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 protect members of the subordinate courts. In the above conspectus, the charge related to criminal contempt framed against the con­temnor is fully established. 20. 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 protect members of the subordinate courts. In the above conspectus, the charge related to criminal contempt framed against the con­temnor is fully established. 20. 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. 21. 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. 1993 (1) SCC 529: ( AIR 1992 SC 904 ) 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." 22. 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, he has set out his own version referring to various acts of omission and commission by the pre­siding officer and lastly stated that he has made reference actuated by malice against him. As stated supra, he has set out his own version referring to various acts of omission and commission by the pre­siding officer and lastly stated that he has made reference actuated by malice against him. It is on record that the contemnor after committing contempt for the first time at 10.35 a.m. returned to the court at 11.20 and thereafter at 12.30 p.m and each time, he in­terrupted the court proceeding by shouting land uttering words as quoted above which were not only disrespectful but manifested his aggressive behaviour. By his conduct, he created obstacle in the functioning of the court which was performing judicial function and therefore, it leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that the conduct of the contemnor in­terfered with due course of administration of justice, undermining the dignity of court. 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 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. 23. 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. 23. In L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., [1984] 3 SCC 405: ( AIR 1984 SC 1374 ), 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. 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 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. 24. As a result of foregoing discussion, the reference made to this Court is allowed and the contemnor Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, Ad­vocate is held guilty of criminal contempt. 25. In this view of the matter, the apology offered does not commend to us for acceptance and it is turned down. 24. As a result of foregoing discussion, the reference made to this Court is allowed and the contemnor Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, Ad­vocate is held guilty of criminal contempt. 25. 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. 26. The matter shall be listed before this Court in the second week of May 2010 for ensuring compliance. Petition allowed.