Judgment :- A.H. JOSHI,J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by Consent. 2. This Contempt proceedings are initiated on the Reference made to this Court by 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. 3. In the proceedings for grant of succession certificate, present contemnors have made a statement on record that the Hon'ble High Court had demanded succession certificate in the appeal pending before High Court. The contemnors were not able to prove that any such order was passed. 4. The trial Court, by passing order below Exh.1, called the explanation from the applicants therein as to why action should not be taken against them for making such false and irresponsible statement. 5. The applicants therein filed written explanation in which objectionable matter was incorporated. The statements, which were objectionable, are quoted in the reference. 6. This Court had taken cognizance and ordered that notice of show cause be issued against the contemnors. 7. The contemnors remained present, intermittently. Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin, one amongst them, was absent inspite of execution of bond and even failed to apply for exemption of personal attendance. Therefore, non bailable warrant of arrest was issued. However, he appeared on the returnable date. Thereafter, the contemnor Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin was committed to jail. 8. Advocate Mr.J.H.Deshmukh appeared, applied for his release on bail and also expressed willingness on behalf of said contemnor to tender unconditional apology, which is accordingly tendered. 9. Other contemnors represented by Advocate Mr.M.D.Shinde, have pleaded ignorance as regards their act of contempt on the ground that the power of attorney holder had dealt with the matter and they had no knowledge, in fact, of whatever had transpired. They pleaded that they had already tendered apology and pleaded for leniency, apart from being excused. 10. We would like to refer to the text contained in reply to the notice of show cause of contempt given by the trial Court, wherein the contemnors had written objectionable matter. Relevant portion appearing in Reference order reads as follows: "1. A. In collusion with Rodga Masjid Trust and with biased mind the court has issued show cause notice. B. Said show cause notice defamed applicants. The applicants are intending to initiate proceedings against this court. C. The show cause notice is illegal. Court is called upon to prove as to how any court can pass written order demanding Succession Certificate. A. In collusion with Rodga Masjid Trust and with biased mind the court has issued show cause notice. B. Said show cause notice defamed applicants. The applicants are intending to initiate proceedings against this court. C. The show cause notice is illegal. Court is called upon to prove as to how any court can pass written order demanding Succession Certificate. D) Court (this Court) doesn't know the procedure for issuance of certificate". The contemnors have also made contemptuous and intimidating statements as under: "2. A. The Court shall not initiate any action against the applicants i.e. other heirs and power of attorney holder. B. Take the note that immediately after receipt of permission a case for defamation will be lodged against this Court. C. ...If it is so, then this Court shall prove it strictly." 11. Upon perusal of language used in reply we notice that from any point of view and perspective, the language consists of a threat which is a contempt on the face of the Court. 12. Considering the apology now tendered before this Court by all the contemnors, we are satisfied that the Respondent nos.: (3) Sau. Rahematbee Sayyad Amin, (4) Sau.Shaikh Julekha alias Nasim, (5) SayyadKhalik Sayyad Amin, and (6) Sayyad Ainul Sayyad Amin, have expressed contemptuous text. However, they are rustic and are ignorant of consequences of whatever they have expressed and signed. Though they are liable for being convicted for their act, the act is not proved to be "wilful act of contempt". These contemnors can, therefore, be cautioned and the notice can be dropped. 13. Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin turns out to be main contemnor. He has now exhibited repentance. 14. Upon due consideration of the manner in which Sayyad Yunus has behaved, his apology cannot be accepted as heart felt repentance. His explanation does not consist of any explanation or justification for what he has behaved. He is content with simple plea of error and apology. Whenever he had appeared in past, his conduct was seen to be stiff, stubborn and unmindful towards whatever he had done. He does not deny that he was power of attorney and does not plead that he was under any mistaken belief for what he had done. He seems to use the device of "apology" as a ladder for rescue, from being committed to prison. 15. He does not deny that he was power of attorney and does not plead that he was under any mistaken belief for what he had done. He seems to use the device of "apology" as a ladder for rescue, from being committed to prison. 15. Act of contempt by Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin thus reveals and is proved to be act of wilful contempt and any expression, heartfelt remorse or apology has not emerged. An apology tendered to evade or repell consequence has to be looked upon as a pretence. 16. Therefore, Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin is liable to be convicted for contempt, of trial Court. 17. We had also heard learned Advocate Mr.J.H.Deshmukh for Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin on the point of sentence, if Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin is convicted eventually. 18. Learned Advocate had urged for leniency on the ground that : (a) Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin being a rustic person and that he may have behaved what he has, due to being misguided and intimidated. (b) Behaviour of Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin states that no sane person can behave what Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin has done. His expressions are those of an intemperate and an intimidated or misguided soul. He must be and is rustic and even below the level of idiocy of a simpleton. Even lay persons know the fallouts of contempt of authority. Lack of sane behaviour alone can lead to such behaviour. True it is that the intention will have to be inferred, but the rustic background of Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin will have to be borne in mind. (c) He, therefore, deserves leniency. Whatever he has undergone is far more a punishment and chastisement-than what a guilty person would deserve. 19. We partly accept the plea in defence to sentence, since patience, wisdom and prudence are becoming a rare specie of human mind, as we experience in day-to-day life. We are, therefore, satisfied that the rustic background of Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin, which was the cause of extreme behaviour, is the cause of leniency as well. 20. We direct that sentence to Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin-respondent no.2 be equal to his period of actual imprisonment. He be released forthwith. Criminal Application Nos.4066/2011, 1912/2011 and 3146/2011 are disposed.