Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 358 (GUJ)

Rameshbhai P. Raval v. J. J. Shah

2011-04-27

J.C.UPADHYAYA, JAYANT PATEL

body2011
JUDGMENT JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. IN order to consider the subject matter of the present petition under the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), reference to certain facts would be relevant as stated herein after. 2. THE initial basis of the present proceedings was certain observations made by this Court at paragraphs 7 and 8 in the order dated 28.1.2009 in Misc. Civil Application No.1538/2008 (Coram: Jayant Patel, J.) for review, wherein the Court had observed, thus :- "7. It appears to the Court that the contents of the affidavit cannot be fully termed as unconditional apology. However, at the same time, it appears to the Court that the deponent has attempted to dilute contemptuous language used in the application by the deponent. Therefore, as the applicant is party- in- person in Civil Application No.8963/08 with MCA (St)No.2234/ 08,1 find that the decision in the present review application may be restricted to the substance of the main review application as to whether there is a valid case for review of the order or not. So far as the language used by the party- in- person in the memo of the application is concerned, this Court records strong displeasure by deprecating such practice by leaving liberty to the other parties to the proceedings to move this Court for initiation of the action under the Contempt of Courts Act, as may be permissible in law. 8. In view of the above, the earlier order dated 08.02.2008, subject to the observations of recording displeasure against the language used by the applicant of Civil Application No.8963/ 08 with deprecation of such practice and for giving liberty to the other parties to the proceedings for initiation of the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, as may be permissible in law, the order dated 08.02.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No.2379/08 is recalled and reviewed and the main Special Civil Application is ordered to be heard afresh. It may be recorded that accordingly, the parties to the main Special Civil Application are also simultaneously heard and separate order is passed." (Emphasis supplied) It is on account of the aforesaid observations, the petitioner herein had preferred the petition for initiation of the action under the Contempt of Courts Act. It may be recorded that accordingly, the parties to the main Special Civil Application are also simultaneously heard and separate order is passed." (Emphasis supplied) It is on account of the aforesaid observations, the petitioner herein had preferred the petition for initiation of the action under the Contempt of Courts Act. Vide order dated 13.8.2009 passed by this Court (Coram: A.L. Dave and K.A. Puj, J.J.), the cognizance was taken and the notice was issued. Thereafter on 2.2.2010 when the matter came up before this Court (Coram: A.L. Dave and Ms. H.N. Devani, J.J.), it was recorded that the party- in- person. Baldevbhai M. Patel is making improper language and improper behaviour and there is likelihood of exposing himself to fresh contempt proceedings by this Court and upon his request, this Court had permitted him to engage Advocate. Thereafter on 30.7.2010 this Court (Coram: Jayant Patel and Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.J.), after taking note of the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by the earlier Bench in the present proceedings had observed that the reply has been submitted dated 6.7.2010 and in the reply itself, the contempnor has gone to the extent of not only using unparliamentary language, but also had made allegation against earlier Bench of this Court. It was observed that prima facie such can be said to be a criminal contempt on the face of the Court and that too against the contempt Bench before the Contempt Bench. It was observed that the stern action and strong punishment would be required to be imposed, if ultimately sufficient explanation does not come on record. 3. THEREAFTER, since Mr. Yagnik, learned Counsel appeared for the contempnor and prayed for time, the time was granted and the matter stood over to 13.8.2010. On that day, it was recorded by the Court in the order that an affidavit has been tendered sworn by the contempnor by the learned Advocate Mr. Yagnik and as per him the explanation was submitted about his conduct and unconditional apology was also tendered. The Court, having considered the same, further observed in the order that the statement made by the contempnor on oath in the proceedings of Civil Application No.8518 of 2010 in MCA No.285 of 2010 shows contemptuous allegations made against the earlier Bench of" this Court (Coram: R.P. Dholakia and D.N. Patel. JJ.) which had disposed of MCA No. 1721 of 2008 vide order dated 13.8.2008. JJ.) which had disposed of MCA No. 1721 of 2008 vide order dated 13.8.2008. It was also observed that the statements and avennents made by the contempnor if considered on their face value amounts to a criminal contempt before this Court itself, by not only lowering down the dignity and Authority of this Court, but to the extent of maligning the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. It was observed that the statements and averments would go a step further inasmuch as that the same amount to tarnishing the image of this Court to a great extent and the Court also observed that a strict and stern view was required to be taken. Considering the seriousness of the matter, the Court further observed that in order to see that the physical movement of the contempnor remains under the control of this Court and his presence is required at any time if punishment is to be imposed upon him, the Court directed to take the bond of Rs.50,000/- by way of security on the aspect that he shall remain present as and when if so directed by this Court. 4. IT appears that thereafter another affidavit was filed by the contempnor dated 31.8.2010, wherein at paragraph 4 he stated as under :- "4. xxx I also feel from the bottom of my heart, after having been made to realize by my Advocate that I ought not to have prepared any application affidavit or any other document for being part of pleadings in any of the litigation. The pleadings prepared by me on my own are culmination of inadequate rationality and lack of knowledge of the language and the law. 5. 1, therefore, tender my unconditional and unqualified apology. I realize that the words used by me are slanderous and involve unsubstantiated allegations. This has the potential to harm the majesty or the Hon'ble High Court and dignity, honesty and sincerity of respective Hon'ble Judges of this Hon'ble High Court. I also tender unconditional apology for my conduct in the Court. 6. I assure the Hon'ble Court that in future all the litigations will be contested and conducted by the Dhruv Co-operative Credit Society Limited with the assistance of Advocates so as not to repeat the blunders. I also tender unconditional apology for my conduct in the Court. 6. I assure the Hon'ble Court that in future all the litigations will be contested and conducted by the Dhruv Co-operative Credit Society Limited with the assistance of Advocates so as not to repeat the blunders. I also assure the Hon'ble Court that I will not make prepare and draw pleading on my own and submit the same without the assistance of an Advocate. And the language of the pleadings will be dignified. 7. I humbly pray for mercy and a chance to improve upon my conduct." The aforesaid affidavit came to be considered by the Court on 7.4.2011 when the matter was further considered and it was observed by the Court that the contents of the aforesaid paragraph of the affidavit may prima facie show that there is repenting on the part of the contempnor and he had also assured this Court that he will not make, prepare, or draw pleadings of his own and submit the same without the assistance of an Advocate and shall not repeat such blunders. In spite of the same subsequently Mr. Yagnik, who was engaged as Advocate, was relieved and another pleading signed by the contempnor dated 14.12.2010 was filed by himself and in the said pleading he used the following language :- "(d) The order passed by Hon Justice Shree J.N. Patel is without applying mind reason as under :- i. 1 have not reply with affidavit on 6.7.10. No letter on record then no question to use raugh language or any disobedience." "(E) Your lordship I request that Ex. R1 and R2 is there, why opponent file M.C.A. 1880/09. To oppose this thing as a juncture. First Thing is that why Ho. Justice A.L. Dave permit to file M.C.A. 1880/09 against the earlier order pass by them Ex. R2." "I further say and submit that I have file L.P.A. 1242/10. In this Court and Hon'ble chef justice, and contempt Court avoid the stay of divison bench R1. This is not good for dignity of Court." "(J) XXX 1. Under Section 6 of the contempt act I am principal man of Judicial Court. So far concern there is no contempt." 5. In this Court and Hon'ble chef justice, and contempt Court avoid the stay of divison bench R1. This is not good for dignity of Court." "(J) XXX 1. Under Section 6 of the contempt act I am principal man of Judicial Court. So far concern there is no contempt." 5. IT appears that thereafter once again the matter came up for hearing on 31.3.2011 and this Court, after having taken into consideration the contents of the affidavit dated 31.8.2010 and subsequent record further found that the contempnor has not stopped himself from such activities inasmuch as he has preferred application after application, wherein loose allegations are made without understanding the law. The matter again came up for hearing before this Court on 7.4.2011, wherein the subsequent affidavit filed by the contempnor in Gujarati dated 5.4.2011 was considered and it was observed by the Court that in the said affidavit on the one hand the contempnor has tried to tender unconditional apology and on the other hand at paragraph 7 he has commented upon the order passed by this Court. IT was observed by the Court that the contempnor has tried to contend that he has exemption under the contempt since as per him, the power is exercised under Section 159 of Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act as a quasi judicial Authority, but it is not understood by him that even if one is quasi judicial Authority, the language cannot be used against any Judge of this Court as stated in various pleadings. This Court thereafter considered the decisions of the Apex Court and it was prima facie observed by the Court that the contempnor can be said to have committed contempt by using derogatory language against the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. which results into lowering down the Authority and dignity of the Court and tendering the unconditional apology is not genuine and even if it is genuine-keeping in view the seriousness of the matter, it may not be accepted and appropriate, punishment may be required to be imposed upon him. which results into lowering down the Authority and dignity of the Court and tendering the unconditional apology is not genuine and even if it is genuine-keeping in view the seriousness of the matter, it may not be accepted and appropriate, punishment may be required to be imposed upon him. The Court after considering provisions of Section 14(1) observed that the matter can further be considered for taking final decision as to whether the contempnor is guilty for committing contempt or not, but at that stage it was stated by the contempnor that the matter may be referred to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions as to whether the matter should be heard by this Bench or heard by any other Bench of this Court. On the very day it was observed by the Bench that the order could be passed by this Court under Section 14(1) for taking the: contempnor into custody, however, as it was stated by the contempnor that he shall not enter the limits of Vastrapur Police Station, wherein the petitioner's family was residing and as the matter was referred to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as per the provisions of Section 14(2) and as it was assured by the contempnor that he shall remain personally present before this Court on 15.4.2011 the date on which the matter is next fixed, the Court did not pass the order for taking the contempnor into the custody. 6. IT appears that thereafter the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice on administrative side and it was ordered by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on administrative side to place the matter before the Division Bench presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel. Thereafter when the matter was placed on 15.4.2011 the contempnor did not remain present as assured to the Court on earlier date i.e. on 7.4.2011 and it was reported by the Police Inspector that the contempnor was admitted on 14.4.2011 with Sitaba Hospital, Ghatlodia and one Dr. Prakash B. Patel (who is the son of the contempnor) on letter-head of Sitaba Hospital, Ghatlodia certified that the contempnor is suffering from Hypertension with Angina with Diabetes with Hernia. At that time the Court considered one of the affidavits filed by the contempnor in the present proceedings dated 13.8.2010, wherein he had stated that he has son, Dr. Prakash B. Patel (who is the son of the contempnor) on letter-head of Sitaba Hospital, Ghatlodia certified that the contempnor is suffering from Hypertension with Angina with Diabetes with Hernia. At that time the Court considered one of the affidavits filed by the contempnor in the present proceedings dated 13.8.2010, wherein he had stated that he has son, Dr. Prakash B. Patel, holds degree of M.D., and he has helped his son to establish and start a hospital in Ahmedabad in Ghatlodia area in the name and style of 'Sitaba Hospital' and the Court found that the certificate issued may not be impartial and, therefore, this Court directed to examine the genuineness of the sickness and health position of the contempnor through Superintendent of Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and the report was to be submitted about his sickness and also on the aspects as to whether the treatment can be provided to him at the Civil Hospital or not and on the aspect as to whether he can be produced or can remain present before this Court or not, if so directed by the Court and the matter was adjourned to 20.4.2011. On 20.4.2011, in spite of the directions issued by this Court, the contempnor was not present, but the police officer did not submit the report by the Superintendent of Civil Hospital, and had submitted the report of the resident doctor of U.N. Mehta Cardiology and Research Centre and it was prima facie observed by the Court that the Police Inspector, Ghatlodia Police Station had not properly taken action as ordered by this Court and, therefore, the learned Government Pleader was communicated to ensure that the officer of the higher rank namely; Deputy Commissioner of Police remains present in the second sitting. When the matter was taken up in the second sitting, it was reported by the Superintendent of U.N. Mehta Institute in the Civil Hospital compound that they have discharged the patient (contempnor) and it was stated by them that the patient (contempnor) of his own came for admission by complaining chest pain and he was admitted in ICU and after examination he has been discharged after keeping him in hospital for three days. Thereafter this Court on that day in exercise of the power under Section 14(1) of the Act, in order to take the contempnor into the custody cancelled the bond and directed the Police Officer to take the contempnor into the custody and it was observed that in view of so-called complaint of ill-health the contempnor shall be kept in jail dispensary and it was also observed that if it is so advised by the doctor of the jail dispensary, he may also be provided treatment in the civil hospital and the matter was kept on the next date for framing of the charge and also for defence of the contempnor, if any, through any Advocate. 7. THEREAFTER, on 21.4.2011 it was stated by the contempnor that he had engaged Advocate, who refused to appear on his behalf and, therefore, assistance of the lawyer may be provided from the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Authority and he had shown desire to engage Shri Goswami, who is in the panel of the Gujarat High Court Legal Services Authority and it was observed by the Court to assign the said Advocate, if available on the panel. 8. THEREAFTER on 22.4.2011 this Court framed the following charges :- "1. In view of the detailed and exhaustive order passed by this Court on 20.4.2011 as well as earlier order dated 7.4.2011, we hereby frame charge against Shri Baldevbhai Manchand Patel, age-66 years, for committing contempt of Court as under :- [i] You, by your action used improper language in the proceedings of this Court being Misc. Civil Application No. 1538 of 2008 as well as the affidavit filed therein. You, by your action, used improper and intemperate language as observed by this Court [Coram: A.L. Dave and K.A. Puj, JJ] in the order dated 13.8.2009 that you are making use of improper language and your behaviour was also improper and you are likely to expose yourself to contempt proceedings. Thereafter, again, this Court [Coram: A.L. Dave and Ms. Harsha Devani, JJ] in the order dated 2.2.2010 also observed about improper use of language and improper behaviour by you. You also used improper language in the Misc. Civil Application No. 285 of 2010 and made contemptuous allegations against the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: R.P. Dholakia and D.N. Patel, JJ]. Harsha Devani, JJ] in the order dated 2.2.2010 also observed about improper use of language and improper behaviour by you. You also used improper language in the Misc. Civil Application No. 285 of 2010 and made contemptuous allegations against the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: R.P. Dholakia and D.N. Patel, JJ]. In the proceedings before the Division Bench [Coram: A.M. Kapadia as His Lordship then was and Bankim Mehta, J], you filed reply dated 14.12.2010, wherein, you have used improper and intemperate language and also passed denigrating remarks against the Court. You also again used improper and intemperate language in your affidavit filed in the proceedings. Even after expressing regret and remorse, you again used improper language with a view to lower the dignity of this Court and also passed denigrating remarks to besmirch the reputation of the highest Court of the State and thereby you have committed criminal contempt of this Court within the meaning of Section 2[c] of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by scandalizing the Authority of the Court which prejudices and directly interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings and further obstructs administration of justice. [ii] Thus, by the aforesaid action on your part, you have committed criminal contempt which is punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971." 8. On that day on behalf of the contempnor Mr. Yagnik as well as Mr. Goswami had appeared and the proceedings of reading over of the charges and admission by the contempnor were recorded vide order dated 22.4.2011, which reads as under :- "FURTHER ORDER 22.04.2011 1. On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Pandit is present. On behalf of the State, Mr. Nanavati, learned APP is present. On behalf of the alleged contempnor Baldevbhai Manchandbhai Patel, Mr. Anand Yagnik as well as Mr. Vilas Goswami alloted by Gujarat State Legal Aid Services Authority are present. 2. In the open Court, we have pronounced the charge as recorded hereinabove. After the charge was recorded, the alleged contempnor, Baldevbhai Manchandbhai Patel, in presence of his both Advocates, has accepted the charge and has tendered oral unconditional apology and he has further declared that he shall submit written apology within the time as may be ordered by the Court and he has denied for any trial. He has signed in presence of both the Advocates in the open Court. 3. He has signed in presence of both the Advocates in the open Court. 3. In view of the above, we direct that if the alleged contempnor is desirous to submit any written apology, the same shall be submitted on or before 26.04.2011 (before 4.00 PM) and a copy of the same shall be served upon the learned APP Mr. Nanavati as well as Mr. Pandit for the applicant. S.O. to 27.04.2011 for hearing and/or pronouncement of the order. The contempnor Baldevbhai Manchandbhai Patel shall be sent to jail as per the earlier order and shall be produced before this Court on 27.04.2011 at 11.00 PM. The notary public shall be permitted to meet the contempnor for notarisation of the affidavit." It appears that on 26.4.2011, the apology has been tendered by the contempnor, whereby he has tried to explain the circumstances and has pleaded his sickness and has stated that his apology may be accepted and the period undergone in the jail (custody) be treated as sufficient and further punishment may not be imposed. 9. WE have at that stage also heard Mr. Pandit, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Nanavati, learned AGP to assist the Court and Mr. Yagnik with Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for the contempnor. 10. SECTION 14(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act reads as under :- "14. 9. WE have at that stage also heard Mr. Pandit, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Nanavati, learned AGP to assist the Court and Mr. Yagnik with Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for the contempnor. 10. SECTION 14(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act reads as under :- "14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court.- (1) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the Court may cause such person to be detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the Court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter, shall - (a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which he is charged; (b) afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge; (c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the charge; and (d) make such other for the punishment or discharge of such person as may be just." As per the provisions of Section 14(l)(a) of the Act the charge in writing has been informed to the contempnor and as per Section 14(l)(b) of the Act he has been given opportunity to defend but as he has admitted the charge. 11. THE guilt for the charge against the contempnor under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act by scandalizing the Authority of the Court, which are prejudicing and directly interfering with the due judicial process and system of administration of justice is proved. As the charge is admitted, no further discussion is required and the contempnor has denied for trial of the charge, the said aspect is completed. Hence, we hold the contempnor guilty for the criminal contempt committed by him as per the above quoted charge. 12. THE aforesaid leads us to pass the order for imposition of punishment upon the contempnor. We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties on the aspect of acceptance of apology tendered and also on the aspect of quantum of punishment. It was submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. 12. THE aforesaid leads us to pass the order for imposition of punishment upon the contempnor. We have also heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties on the aspect of acceptance of apology tendered and also on the aspect of quantum of punishment. It was submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Pandit that the apology tendered is not bonafide inasmuch as earlier similar type of apology was tendered when the affidavit was given in English dated 31.8.2010 and it was submitted that in that affidavit various assurances were given to the Court, including that he shall not repeat such activities. In spite of the same, Mr. Yagnik was relieved and thereafter, the contempnor has continued to make such allegations by subsequent pleadings and it is only when the Advocate is engaged after framing of the charge, he has tendered the apology. In the submission of Mr. Pandit, tendering such an apology is only by way of eye-wash and to come out from the serious criminal contempt committed by the contempnor by making baseless and scandalizing allegation against the Hon'ble Judge of this Court and, therefore, it was submitted that the apology may not be accepted and the maximum punishment as provided under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act be imposed upon the contempnor. Mr. Pandit in furtherance of his submission, also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Ors., etc.", reported in AIR 2007 SC 2688 and he contended that in the said case also the Apex Court had an occasion to make observations for dealing with the contempnor, who commits criminal contempt and the apology was not accepted and the punishment was imposed by the Apex Court. 13. WHEREAS on behalf of the contempnor, Mr. Yagnik submitted that the language used in the apology shows that the contempnor is repenting for his conduct and in his submission, as the contempnor is aged about 66 years, and there are health problems and there is past record of no criminal antecedents, the most lenient view may be taken by this Court even if the apology is not accepted and if the punishment is to be imposed, in the submission of Mr. Yagnik, the period undergone of the 7 days be treated as sufficient punishment and further punishment may not be imposed. 14. WHEREAS Mr. Nanavati, learned APP- AGP submitted that it is not a matter where the contempnor had made allegation against one or two Hon'ble Judges of this Court, but has used scandalizing language and made allegation against several Benches of this Court comprising of several judges of this Court. Not only that but thereafter also he has continued to behave in the same manner before various Benches of this Court. This Court keeping the magnanimous view, tolerated the party- in- person and had also warned a number of times, but he has abused magnanimity of this Court and, therefore, in the submission of the learned APP- AGP, exemplary punishment deserves to be imposed, which may be of three months. The learned APP- AGP also submitted that the apology tendered is not bona fide and the language is just a poetic language, which does not show repentance, but on the contrary if the past conduct is considered, it is not a case where the apology should be accepted by this Court. He submitted that since it is a case of making scandalizing allegations against various Hon'ble Judges of this Court, including former Judges of this Court, the contempnor deserves to be strictly dealt with, however, he submitted that while imposing punishment, the Court may take into consideration the age of the contempnor and other aspects which this Court may find it proper. Section 12 of the Act and more particularly the proviso with the explanation provides that the apology shall not be rejected on the ground that it is qualified 01 conditional if the accused has made it in bona fide and it further provides that the punishment awarded may be remitted upon the apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court. Under these circumstances, we may be required to consider as to whether it would be a fit case to accept apology or not. 15. WE have already referred to herein above the relevant record and proceedings on the basis of which the charge has been framed which is admitted by the contempnor. Under these circumstances, we may be required to consider as to whether it would be a fit case to accept apology or not. 15. WE have already referred to herein above the relevant record and proceedings on the basis of which the charge has been framed which is admitted by the contempnor. The contempnor at the first instances when he was being represented through Advocate in the affidavit dated 31.8.2010 had tendered the apology and he had also assured the Court that he will not make, prepare and draw pleadings of his own and submit without assistance of the Advocate and the language of the pleadings would be dignified. In spite of the same, he has continued to use the same language in the subsequent pleadings and the affidavit some of which are referred to by us in the earlier paragraphs and which are part of the record, on the basis of which the charge is framed. The pertinent aspect is that after the aforesaid affidavit dated 31.8.2010 in Gujarati was filed, when the contempnor filed affidavit dated 15.10.2010, he has stated that there is no contempt committed by him. Thereafter on 14.12.2010 in the affidavit filed by him, as referred by us herein above, he has again made an attempt to defend his action by going to the extent that he is the principal man of judicial Court and there is no contempt committed by him. Once again in the affidavit filed in Gujarati dated 5.4.2010 in paragraph 14 he has stated that it is his public duty and he may be given benefit of probation but in paragraph 15 again he has stated that since no actions were taken by the Hon'ble two Judges of this Court, his action is bona fide and he has demanded pardon. In paragraph 23 he has again stated that he is right. This was the tenor and nature of repentance expressed so far and his conduct is of continuing with the making of allegations of the same type by using the scandalizing language. It is only in the last affidavit, which is filed after framing of the charges, he has shown repentance and has tendered apology. It appears from the said affidavit also that because he has been taken into custody, it has made a self-introspection to him and not of his own, which was expected to be. It is only in the last affidavit, which is filed after framing of the charges, he has shown repentance and has tendered apology. It appears from the said affidavit also that because he has been taken into custody, it has made a self-introspection to him and not of his own, which was expected to be. There is no explanation coming on record about his action of not remaining present in the Court on 15.4.2011, though it was assured and undertaken, the action of getting admitted in the hospital of his son, the action of going to the Civil Hospital before the police officer reaches the hospital concerned and getting discharged of his own and of remaining present in the Court of his own when having realized further stern action by the Court, may be apprehending against the doctor concerned too. 16. UNDER these circumstances, we find that the apology is not bona fide nor, considering the whole record of the case, can be treated as genuine. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the apology tendered by the contempnor does not deserve to be accepted. The aforesaid leads us to examine the question of punishment. As per Section 12 of the Act, the maximum punishment provided is of simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with a fine which may extend to Rs. 2,000/- or with both. The law on the question of proportionality of punishment is by now well settled. The power of the Court for imposition of punishment normally is to be exercised, keeping in view the intention of the Parliament and also to create a deterrent effect in the society so as to uphold the dignity and Authority of this Court, apart from the power so vested to this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, we may refer to the case law on the subject. In case of Haridas (supra), the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the case of criminal contempt committed by the contempnor by making statement on oath using derogatory and contemptuous language against the Hon'ble Judges of the higher judiciary. It was observed by the Apex Court in the above referred decision at paragraphs 18 to 20 as under :- 18. It was observed by the Apex Court in the above referred decision at paragraphs 18 to 20 as under :- 18. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Bench in Advocate General, State of Bihar v. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries: ( 1980 (3) SCC 311 ) citing those two decisions in the cases of Offutt and Jennison (supra) stated thus :- ".....It may be necessary to punish as a contempt a cause of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice. The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice, because unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of Court not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury as the expression "Contempt of Court" may seem to suggest but to protect and to vindicate the right of the public and the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with." 19. Krishna Iyer, J. in his separate judgment In Re. S. Mulgaokar: (1978 (3) SCC 339) while giving broad guidelines in taking punitive action in the matter of contempt of Court has stated :- ".....If the Court considers the attack on the judge or judges scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream." 20. In the case of Brahma Prakash Sharma and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh: ( AIR 1954 SC 10 ) this Court after referring to various decisions of the foreign countries as well as of the Privy Council stated thus :- "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 affirmative 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." 17. THEREAFTER at paragraph 31, it was observed thus :- "31. When the background facts highlighted above are considered in the background of the principles set out above, the inevitable conclusion is that the contemnor deserves no sympathy. In fact, the lenient approach of the Guwahati High Court seems to have encouraged him to make statements on oath tarnishing the image of the Judges of the highest judiciary. His apology seems to be not genuine. This is more so because he wanted to justify the statements made in para 4." 18. ULTIMATELY the Apex Court imposed the sentence for a period of two months. In another decision of the Apex Court in the case of J. Vasudevan v. T.R. Dhananjaya, reported in 1995(6) SCC 249 , the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the question of considering apology tendered by Government Officer which may not apply considering the distinguishing facts and circumstances of the present case, but in the very decision on the aspects of sentence, the Apex Court observed at para 14 as under :- "14. Coming to the mercy jurisdiction, let it be first stated that while awarding sentence on a contempnor the Court does so to uphold the majesty of law, and not with any idea of vindicating the prestige of the Court or to uphold its dignity. It is really to see that unflinching faith of the people in Courts remains intact. Coming to the mercy jurisdiction, let it be first stated that while awarding sentence on a contempnor the Court does so to uphold the majesty of law, and not with any idea of vindicating the prestige of the Court or to uphold its dignity. It is really to see that unflinching faith of the people in Courts remains intact. But, if the order of even the highest Court of the land is allowed to be wilfully disobeyed and a person found guilty of contempt is let off by remitting sentence on plea of mercy, that would send wrong signals to everybody in the country. It has been a sad experience that due regard is not always shown even to the order of the highest Court of the country. Now, if such orders are disobeyed, the effect would be that people would lose faith in the system of administration of justice and would desist from approaching the Court, by spending time, money and energy to fight their legal battle. If in such a situation mercy is shown, the effect would be that people would not knock the door of the Courts to seek justice, but would settle score on the streets, where muscle power and money power would win, and the weak and the meek would suffer. That would be a death-knell to the rule of law and social justice would receive a fatal blow. This Court cannot be a party to it and, harsh though it may look, it is duty-bound to award proper punishment to uphold the rule of law, how so high a person may be...." It is true that the aforesaid observations were made by the Apex Court in the case of punishment to be imposed in a civil contempt, but the observations made by the Apex Court in the above referred decision can be taken into consideration, even in criminal contempt since criminal contempt is more serious than civil contempt. 19. IN the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ranveer Yadav v. State of Bihar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC, 493, which was a case for commission of criminal contempt, the Apex Court had once again an occasion to consider the question of power of the Court to punish the contempnor in the criminal contempt. It was observed by the Apex Court at paragraphs 17 to 20 as under :- 17. It was observed by the Apex Court at paragraphs 17 to 20 as under :- 17. Due conduct of any judicial proceeding is a matter of high public importance as it is inextricably connected with rule of law on which is based the constitutional mode of governance in this country. That is why the framers of the Act preceded the expression interfere with the words "tends to" and it has been further emphasized by addition of word "due' before "course of any judicial proceedings". 18. We must remember that legislature does not waste words. Therefore, every word used in Section 2(c)(ii) must be given its proper and natural meaning. Thus read, Section 2(c)(ii) must be given a broad sweep so as to include within it even any attempt to interfere with the due course of a judicial proceeding. The word due' is very crucial in this context and must mean a natural and proper course of judicial proceeding. 19. This Court, therefore, holds that Section 2(c)(ii) has been enacted to protect apart from sanctity, the regularity and purity of a judicial proceeding. This, we repeat, is based on principles of high public policy. That is why contempt power is said to be an inherent attribute of a Superior Court of Record. This power has not been given to the subordinate judiciary, but in an appropriate case, subordinate judiciary can make a reference to the High Court under Section 15 (2) of the Act, as has been done in this case. 20. Thus when High Court exercises its power on a reference under Section 15(2) of the Act, it is virtually exercising the same as a guardian of the subordinate judiciary to protect its proceedings against an outrage and affront. IN exercising such power, the High Court being a "Court of Record and the highest judicial Authority in the State is discharging its jurisdiction in loco parentis' over subordinate judiciary in that State. Therefore, there is something in the nature of High Court's power under Section 15(2) of the Act which couples it with a duty. The duty is obviously to uphold the rule of law. Therefore, there is something in the nature of High Court's power under Section 15(2) of the Act which couples it with a duty. The duty is obviously to uphold the rule of law. Here we may remember the views of Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns, who gave the concept of power coupled with duty, the most graceful articulation and which I quote :- "...But there may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the conditions under which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person in whom the power is reposed to exercise that power when called upon to do so..." [Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford and another, 5 A.C. 214 (H.L.) at 222-223] These words resonate with a strange poignancy even today. But there is a rider. Contempt power has to be exercised with utmost caution and in an appropriate case and that is why High Court has been entrusted with it. 20. THEREAFTER, the punishment by the High Court for two months' imprisonment with the fine of Rs.2,000/ - was upheld. We may record that in the case of Ranveer Yadav (supra) it was a case of disruption of the proceedings by exchanging heated words and creating unpleasant scene in the Court, which resulted into threatening decorum and dignity of the Court in such a manner that the learned Judge was forced to rise but it was a case of single instance. If the facts of the present case are considered it is not a matter of making scandalous allegations and thereby causing obstructions and interference to the system of administration of justice by this Court, but is more than one, against various Benches of various Hon'ble Judges of this Court. It was to that extent that such contemptuous languages are stated on oath in writing and during the course of the hearing also as recorded by this Court in the earlier paragraph the behaviour of the contempnor was such that the Court had to warn the contempnor on that aspect. It was to that extent that such contemptuous languages are stated on oath in writing and during the course of the hearing also as recorded by this Court in the earlier paragraph the behaviour of the contempnor was such that the Court had to warn the contempnor on that aspect. Further, as observed earlier, after assurance is given in writing as well as oral to this Court, the contempnor has continued to indulge into, making use of contemptuous languages against various Hon'ble Judges of this Court and his subsequent conduct as referred to herein above shows that he has played with the decorum and dignity of this Court not once, but a number of times and it is only on account of the magnanimity and graciousness shown by the Court at the relevant point of time, no immediate actions were taken. 21. IT appears that the learned APP-AGP is right in submitting that the magnanimity of this Court is abused by the contempnor by continuously making use of contemptuous language in writing as well as by making show in the Court in a manner, which results into lowering down the dignity and Authority of this Court and if under these circumstances appropriate punishment is not imposed upon the contempnor, the people's faith in the administration of justice would receive a severe blow. Further, if appropriate punishment is not imposed in such matter, where the criminal contempt is committed by the person, it would result into mockery of the proceedings of this Court and it may leave room for encouragement to the party- in- persons, who are normally being permitted, to behave in a contemptuous manner, without receiving appropriate consequence in accordance with law. But at the same time, the Court may consider the aspects of the age of the contempnor being of 66 years and the so-called status of the health. It is not a matter where if an imprisonment is ordered and one is in jail he would not get any treatment, but such aspects may have some relevance for showing some leniency on the quantum of punishment. 22. UNDER these circumstances, we find that appropriate punishment shall be three months' simple imprisonment with the fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default there shall be further simple imprisonment of one month. 22. UNDER these circumstances, we find that appropriate punishment shall be three months' simple imprisonment with the fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default there shall be further simple imprisonment of one month. Hence, we impose the punishment upon the contempnor under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act of three months simple imprisonment with the fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default there shall be further simple imprisonment of one month and the contempnor to undergo the imprisonment accordingly. Since he has already been in custody, he shall be continued to be in custody at Sabarmati Jail until the sentence is over. The set off of the period undergone of seven days from 20th April, 2011 till date shall be made admissible while computing the period of sentence. Mr. Yagnik, learned Counsel submits that because of the ill-health of the contempnor, he may require medical treatment and special diet. Hence, it is observed that if it is so advised by the doctor(s), necessary medical treatment shall be provided to the contempnor, including special diet, if it is so advised by the doctor(s). 23. AFTER the pronouncement of the order, Mr. Yagnik, learned Counsel appearing for the contempnor prayed that the contempnor is desirous to prefer appeal against the order of this Court imposing sentence as per Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and, therefore, he prayed that as per Section 19(3) this Court may release the contempnor on bail since such powers are available to the High Court. 24. SUCH prayer is objected by Mr. Pandit, learned Counsel for the petitioner. We may record that in the case of Registrar of the Orissa High Court v. Baradakanta Misra and Anr., reported in AIR 1973 Orissa 244 (V 60 c 83), the Full Bench (comprising of Five Hon'ble Judges, including the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court), had an occasion to consider the powers of the High Court to grant bail and at paragraph 98 on page 282, it has been observed, thus :- "98. ...It is, thus, clear that it is not mandatory for the High Court to grant bail even in a case where substantive punishment is imposed. The word used is "may" and the High Court has the discretion, according to the facts and circumstances of each case, whether to grant bail or not. ...It is, thus, clear that it is not mandatory for the High Court to grant bail even in a case where substantive punishment is imposed. The word used is "may" and the High Court has the discretion, according to the facts and circumstances of each case, whether to grant bail or not. If the contempt committed is very grave, it is open to the High Court not to grant bail. ..." 25. IF the facts of the present case are further considered, it appears that in past, since the Court found that the movement of the contempnor was required to be controlled, he was released on the bond of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, when the matter was heard on 7.4.2011 he had assured the Court that he shall remain present on 15.4.2011 and in spite of the same, he did not remain present and got himself admitted in his son's hospital to create evidence of inability. Thereafter, with a view to avoid the process of Court for his examination through Superintendent of Civil Hospital, he got himself admitted in U.N. Mehta Heart and Research Institute, where doctors, after keeping him for three days, discharged on his own and on that day also he did not remain present in the Court i.e. 20.4.2011 in the first sitting. It was in the second sitting when the Court was to pass further orders, he remained present. Thereafter, for the reasons recorded by the Court on that day, the bail bond was cancelled and he was taken into custody. The assurance given in writing on oath is also not observed by the contempnor as stated in our judgement. Further, criminal contempt has been admitted and, therefore, found proved. The contempt committed by the contempnor is very grave for the reasons recorded by us in the judgement. Keeping in view all the aforesaid conducts on the part of the contempnor, we are not inclined to exercise the discretion for releasing the contempnor on bail. Hence, the said prayer is rejected. 26. THE petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of accordingly.