Imtiyaz Murtaza J 1. The contempt proceeding in the instant case has its genesis in the Reference made by Sri M.K.Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Budaun duly forwarded by the District Judge Budaun vide letter dated 12.5.2009 and 14.5.2009 respectively whereby the officer has referred the matter to this Court for initiation of contempt proceeding against Sri Uma Shanker Sharma, Advocate Budaun. 2. It would transpire from the record that on 23.4.2009 at 3.15 p.m while the officer was engaged in hearing final arguments in S.T. No. 1093 of 2007 state v. Buntee and others, the contemnor accompanied with Sri Kshitiz Shankhdhar Advocate his son and junior Sri Subodh Kumar Sharma, Sri Abhishek Rastogi Advocates and 8 to 10 other advocates entered the court room and the contemnor who was leading the mob consisting of advocates, became boisterous and disturbed the serenity of the court speaking loudly that "This is not Pakistan; that you are running your court according to Marshal Law." Thereafter, he struck his hands on dais of the court and yelled that "Hear Mirdulesh Kumar Singh you are dishonest. You have passed wrong orders of warrants against my clients". It is further narrated that when the Presiding officer asked him to calm down the contemnor got enraged and by striking his hands on the dais yelled that "you at the maximum, refer the matter of contempt to Hon. High Court but I will not be affected in any manner. You are in service. I will gather whole bar against you and will make false complaints against you, then you will understand. My practice is more than your service." The above words uttered by the contemnor had the effect of scandalizing the court in relation to its judicial functioning undermining dignity and was an affront to the majesty of law. On 13.7.2009, the Administrative Judge Budaun passed the following order. "Prima facie this appears to be a case of trying to overawe the Court and to lower its dignity. Kindly place before the Chief Justice for direction." On 15.7.2009, Hon. Chief Justice appended approval and it is in this backdrop that the matter has come up before this Bench. We have heard learned counsel appearing for him. We have also heard learned A.G.A. 3. Kindly place before the Chief Justice for direction." On 15.7.2009, Hon. Chief Justice appended approval and it is in this backdrop that the matter has come up before this Bench. We have heard learned counsel appearing for him. We have also heard learned A.G.A. 3. Sri Manish Tiwari, appearing for the contemnor brought certain facts to the notice of the Court and abstained from arguing the case on merits and made impassioned plea for taking lenient view of the entire matter and invoked the compassion of the Court for accepting the unqualified apology which the contemnor has already tendered and for discharging the contemnor. He prayed for lenient view stating that the contemnor was fairly senior having already put in 40 years of practice in the civil court at Budaun 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 his stature nor has he been involved in any contempt proceeding prior to this. To prop up his submission invoking compassion, the learned counsel submitted that the contemnor cannot be said to be addicted to using contemptuous language and making scurrilous attacks as it is his first aberration and therefore, he should be purged and should be given a chance to expiate his aberrant behaviour. 4. Here in this case, we are pained that we have to deal with a case involving a lawyer under the Contempt of Court Act. We proceed further with the case indicating to ourselves the piece of advice that the Court should not be over or hypersensitive and should not exercise this jurisdiction on any exaggerated notion of the dignity of the Judges and must act with the dispassionate dignity and decorum which befits the judicial office. At the same time it should be borne in mind that the Court is the protector of public justice. Before we proceed further, we must observe that the apology is not a protective gear to be used as a shield to protect the contemnor as a last resort. At the same time it should be borne in mind that the Court is the protector of public justice. Before we proceed further, we must observe that the apology is not a protective gear to be used as a shield to protect the contemnor as a last resort. The apology, in order to dilute the gravity of the offence, we must say, should be voluntary, unconditional and indicative of remorse and contrition and it should be tendered at the earliest opportunity and any apology preceded by lame excuses and justification merely to get rid of the situation on the assumption that courts sparingly use the discretion of punishment is nothing but a tactful move to ward off the punishment. 5. It would be obvious from the record that the contemnor filed two affidavits first sworn on 11th Oct 2009 and second one sworn on 29th Nov 2009 in which he has denied the role and words attributed to him attended with averment that he neither loosened diatribe against the Presiding officer nor criticized him in the manner as alleged. He also denied that he threatened the said officer. To sum up, he averred that he did not do any overt or covert act which could be construed to be obstruction in the judicial work being performed by the officer. In para 6 of the affidavit sworn on 11th Oct 2009, it is averred that had the contemnor indulged in the manner as alleged, the trial court could have proceeded against him under section 228 IPC. Again it is stated that the facts have not been correctly reported by the referring Judge. In para 8, the contemnor has referred to order sheet of trial no. 1064 of 2008 and criminal Bail Cancellation Application no. 7 of 2008 stating that a perusal thereof would unfold the style of working of the court concerned. In para 9, he stated that on 9.4.2009, exemption application had been moved for exempting presence of some of the accused. However, the same was rejected observing orally that no plausible ground was urged and thereafter, the presiding officer left the court informing that he had to undergo computer training. No written order was passed either separately or on the order sheet. It is further stated that the counsel for the accused however, was unaware of any order passed thereon. However, the same was rejected observing orally that no plausible ground was urged and thereafter, the presiding officer left the court informing that he had to undergo computer training. No written order was passed either separately or on the order sheet. It is further stated that the counsel for the accused however, was unaware of any order passed thereon. Assuming that the orders would be passed at a later stage during the course of the day the contemnor left the court. However, it transpired that while rejecting application, the court had issued non bailable warrants against the accused and next date was 13.4.2009. On 13.4.2009 again two of the accused were present and for remaining two accused exemption application was filed. The two of the accused persons who were present in the court, had affixed their thumb impression on the order sheet. The said application was rejected without any intimation to the counsel for the accused fixing 23.4.2009. On 23.4.2009, it appeared that thumb impression affixed by the accused persons on the order sheet on 13.4.2009 had been scored out and the order was found written mentioning that accused were absent on 9.4.2009, and 13.4.2009. On 24.4.2009, it also came to the notice of the contemnor that bail cancellation had also been allowed by the court on 9.4.2009 canceling the bail granted to accused Meer Khan and Mohd. Azad. It is pointed out by the contemnor that in the order sheet of 9.4.2009, 13.4.2009 and 23.4.2009, there is no mention of order having been passed cancelling the bail to the accused aforesaid. In para 12, it is stated that as per order sheet non bailable warrants had been issued against Jumma Khan on 9.4.2009 but the counsel had absolutely no knowledge regarding the same as the order sheet had not been prepared in his presence. It is further stated that on 13.4.2009 accused Jumma Khan was present in court and had appended his left thumb impression on the order sheet but on the next date i.e. 23.4 2009, the thumb impression of accused Jumma Khan was scored out and non bailable warrants were issued against Jumma Khan. On 23.4.2009 accused Jumma Khan could not appear in court and his exemption application was rejected on the ground of reasons being insufficient. On 23.4.2009 accused Jumma Khan could not appear in court and his exemption application was rejected on the ground of reasons being insufficient. In para 14, it is stated that contemnor who was appearing as counsel had no intimation or knowledge of bail cancellation and also of issuance of non bailable warrants against Jumma Khan and therefore on 23.4.2009 he appeared in the court and moved application for exemption on behalf of accused Jumma Khan, Meer Khan and Mohd Azad and only thereafter, he came to know about the orders. It is further stated that at the time when he appeared in the court, no judicial proceeding was going on and he denied that hearing in S.T. No. 1093 of 2007 were in process. The next averment in the para under reference is argumentative and it is stated that had the hearing as alleged in S.T. No. 1093 of 2007 been in process, the referring Judge must have mentioned the name of the counsel as witness in his support. In para 15, it is stated that when he came to know of scoring out of thumb impression from a perusal of the order sheet he adverted the attention of the court to the matter but instead of appreciating his anxiety, the presiding officer retorted in the following words: " Do you think that this mischief has been done by the court itself or any staff of the court." In reply, it is alleged, he addressed the court stating that he was not casting any aspersion on anybody but the court was certainly duty bound to find out the truth regarding the absence of exemption application from the record of the case. It is further stated that hearing this words, the presiding officer lost his balance and used very harsh and threatening language with the deponent. The words uttered by the officer pricked the deponent that he gave the officer to understand that he was sufficiently senior having put in 40 years of practice that he was going to report the matter to higher ups and would also move application for transfer of the case from his court. He denied the allegations that he struck the Dais of the court and raised the tone of his voice and uttered the words that this was not Pakistan and that the officer was acting under Marshal Law. He denied the allegations that he struck the Dais of the court and raised the tone of his voice and uttered the words that this was not Pakistan and that the officer was acting under Marshal Law. In para 16, it is stated that he reported the matter to the District Bar Association Budaun of the developments and also moved transfer application on 25.4.2009. In para 17, he cited certain instances of wanton working of the officer. In para 17 (d) the contemnor admitted that there were frayed tempers from both sides but at the same he denied that the contemnor made the utterance attributed to him. In para 19, it is stated that the Hon. Court may be pleased to take this explanatory affidavit on record and the notice issued to the deponent be discharged. 6. In the affidavit sworn on 29th Nov 2009, in the introductory paras, the contemnor gave profile about himself followed by self same averments as contained in the affidavit sworn on 11th Oct 2009. In para 16 of the affidavit, the contemnor made averments which are quoted below for ready reference. "16. That on the other hand, the deponent himself is pained at the turn of events and feels himself to be embarrassed by being dragged unnecessarily into the controversy. However, part from and independent of whatever has been stated above, if this Court still feels that the deponent had done anything which may amount to a contempt of court, the deponent offers unqualified and unconditional apology." In para 17, it is prayed that in the interest of justice the Hon. Court be pleased to take the affidavit on record and pass suitable orders as deemed fit. 7. Before dwelling upon analytical examination of the facts on record, we would like to quip here that we are concerned with the issue whether the contemnor has committed contempt of court or not and not with the issue whether the conduct of the officer was such as to provoke the contemnor into indulging in acts amounting to contempt of court. Before dwelling upon analytical examination of the facts on record, we would like to quip here that we are concerned with the issue whether the contemnor has committed contempt of court or not and not with the issue whether the conduct of the officer was such as to provoke the contemnor into indulging in acts amounting to contempt of court. Even if it be assumed that the conduct of the officer was such as to lash the contemnor into frenzied overt acts, the proper course open to the contemnor was to have raised the issue by citing instances of omission and commission to the higher authorities by way of representation or complaint which he has already done but by no reckoning it was open to him to let out bile in the open court in a language which scandalized the court or lowered its position. 8. The crux of the entire episode is that this fact is admitted that when the contemnor adverted attention of the court to the fact of scoring out thumb impression affixed on the order sheet and showing him absent on the dates while the accused was present in court, the officer was present in court and was sitting on the dais and he lost his balance and uttered the words in reply to which he replied but in measured words. However, he gave his own watered down version and denied to have uttered the words as attributed to him by the referring officer. Although the contemnor has denied the fact that hearing as alleged in S.T. No. 1093 of 2007 was not in process but this much is admitted that there was exchange of hot words between him and the presiding officer while the presiding officer was on the dais. He admitted that he objected to the words uttered by the officer quipping that he was not casting any aspersion on any body but the court was certainly duty bound to find out the truth regarding absence of exemption application from the record of the case as the same has resulted into extreme hardship to the client of the deponent and to his prejudice. He has admitted to have uttered the words that he had put in more than 40 years of practice but had never previously faced any such situation and he was going to report the matter to the higher authorities and would also file transfer application. The presence of the contemnor at the time of incident does indicate that he was present in the court and objected to scoring out thumb impression and also absence of exemption application from the record. It does not commend to us for acceptance that at the relevant time, the court was not busy hearing any case. It is no where stated that the court was either sitting idle or was in the process of taking up any other case. By this reckoning, it appears probable that the contemnor must have interrupted the proceedings by drawing the attention of the court to the absence of exemption application. In para 17 (d) of the affidavit sworn on 11th Oct 2009, it is admitted that no doubt tempers were frayed from both the sides but at the same time he categorically denied that contemnor made the utterances as attributed to him in the reference. Now the question arises whether the contemnor could interrupt the proceeding of the court even if it be assumed that the officer was adamant not to listen to the genuine grievance of the contemnor. It brooks no dispute that the officer was on the dais as admitted by the contemnor himself and it necessarily follows that he was transacting judicial business at the time when the working of the court was interrupted. 9. Having come to the conclusion that the contemnor interrupted the working of the court, the question remains whether he was justified in interrupting the court in order to draw attention of the court that the accused was present on the particular date while the court erroneously treating him absent, issued non bailable warrant and further to the order sheet wherein the thumb impression of the accused had been scored out in order to show him absent. Even if it be assumed though from the fact it does not remain a fact that tampering had been done in the order sheet and that the accused was erroneously marked and assumed to be absent on the particular date and subsequently, non bailable warrant was issued, it was not open to the contemnor to have interfered with the judicial proceeding at a time when the court was busy hearing the case. It is stated at various places in his affidavit by the contemnor that he adverted attention of the court to the errancy of issuing non bailable warrant against the accused while he was present on the last dates. 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. The apology is itself conditional. In the two affidavits filed by the contemnor, various allegations have been levelled and in the affidavit sworn on 11th Oct 2009, instances of omission and commission of the officer has been highlighted at various places particularly in para 17. The apology being conditional and with strings attached, does not qualify to be an apology expressing real contriteness. Another ground cited that the contemnor had put in 40 years of practice +does not commend to us for acceptance as being senior does not equip him with any right of desecrating the very majesty and dignity of the court. From the counter affidavit, it leaves no manner of doubt that the contemnor made all out efforts to put the blame on the officers without finding any fault with his conduct and utterances and did not seem to be repentant for his acts which scandalized the court and undermined the dignity in the public estimation. 10. From the counter affidavit, it leaves no manner of doubt that the contemnor made all out efforts to put the blame on the officers without finding any fault with his conduct and utterances and did not seem to be repentant for his acts which scandalized the court and undermined the dignity in the public estimation. 10. 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. A legal practitioner has no doubt his duties towards his client but at the same time he has equally important duty and obligation upon him to cooperate with the court in the orderly and pure administration of justice. Any departure would be construed to be violative and neglecting his duties and obligations. A lawyer is a person educated and trained in law. The use of language has to be balanced and in fitness of things within the framework of the law of the land. He cannot and should not be reckless in 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. In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujrat, (1991) 4 SCC 406 , the Apex Court held as under. " The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person which would tend to interfere with the administration of justice or which would lower the authority of court. The public have a vital stake in effective and orderly administration of justice . " The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person which would tend to interfere with the administration of justice or which would lower the authority of court. The public have a vital stake in effective and orderly administration of justice . The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the community in the due administration of justice and so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but to protect and vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with." In N.B.Sanghvi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (1991) 3 SCC 600 the Apex Court observed as under: "The tendency of maligning the reputation of Judicial Officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. And, when a member of the profession resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating the Judge into submission, it is all the more painful. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize which would shake the confidence of the litigating public in the system, the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the concerned judge but also to the fair name of the judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks like the present one are often designedly employed with a view to taming a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. Such cases raise larger issues touching the independence of not only the concerned Judge but the entire institution. The foundation of our system which is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the Presiding Judicial Officers with impunity. 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." 11. The precise words attributed to the contemnor to have been uttered in the court may be quoted below. "This is not Pakistan. You are running your court according to Marshal Law". Thereafter, the contemnor beating the dais of the court, uttered the following words. "Hear Mridulesh Kumar Singh you are dishonest. You have passed wrong orders of warrants against my clients" Again, the contemnor uttered the following words. "You at the maximum refer the matter of contempt to Hon High Court, but I will not affected in any manner, you are in service. I will gather whole bar against you and will make false complaints against you, then you will understand. My practice is more than your service." 12. 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, set out his own watered down version stating that he adverted attention of the court to the erroneous orders issuing non baiable warrnats while the accused was present in court. It brooks no dispute that as to the incident that happened in court, the version of presiding officer is entitled to pre-eminence and obvious acceptance and only in rarest case it may be disregarded. 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 with strings attached "If this Court still feels that the deponent had done anything which may amount to a contempt of court, the deponent offers unqualified and unconditional apology." As stated supra, from the sequence of events, it is quite natural that the contemnor 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. 13. 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 impunity, 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. 14. 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. 14. 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. 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 M.P. 1993 (1) SCC 529 in which the Apex Court observed as under: "To punish an advocate for contempt of court, no doubt must be regarded as an extreme measure, but to preserve the proceedings of the courts from being deflected or interfered with, and to keep the streams of justice pure, serene and undefiled, it becomes the duty of the court though painful to punish the contemnor in order to preserve its dignity. No one can claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt if his act or conduct in relation to court or court proceedings interferes with is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice." 15. 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." 15. 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 is conditional and has been offered with strings attached that "If the Hon. Court still feels that the deponent had done anything which may amount to a contempt of court, the deponent offers unqualified and unconditional apology." As stated supra, he has not denied the incident but has set out his own watered down 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 discussed above, the contemnor interrupted the proceeding of the court by drawing attention of the court in the midst of hearing of another case and uttered certain words as quoted above which certainly amounted to contempt of court 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 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 L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., [ 1984] 3 SCC 405, the Apex Court described the apology as a 'paper apology and refused to accept it in the following words: "We do not think that merely because the appellant has tendered his apology we should set aside the sentence and allow him to go unpunished. Otherwise, all that a person wanting to intimidate a Judge by making the grossest imputations against him has to do, is to go ahead and scandalize him, and later on tender a formal empty apology which costs him practically nothing. If such an apology were to be accepted, as a rule, and not as an exception, we would in fact be virtually issuing a 'licence' to scandalize courts and commit contempt of court with impunity. It will be rather difficult to persuade members of the Bar, who care for their self-respect, to join the judiciary if they are expected to pay such a price for it. And no sitting judge will feel free to decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on account of fear of being scandalized and persecuted by an advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations if the Judge goes against his wishes. And no sitting judge will feel free to decide any matter as per the dictates of his conscience on account of fear of being scandalized and persecuted by an advocate who does not mind making reckless allegations if the Judge goes against his wishes. If this situation were to be countenanced, advocates who can cow down the Judges, and make them fail in line with their wishes, by threats of character assassination and persecution, will be preferred by the litigants to the advocates who are mindful of professional ethics and believe in maintaining the decorum of courts." In the above perspective, it cannot be ruled out that the contemnor set up the 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 a result of foregoing discussion, the reference made to this Court is allowed and the contemnor Uma Shanker Sharma, Advocate is held guilty of criminal contempt. 17. We accordingly convict him under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs 20,000/-. In default, it may be prescribed, 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.