Judgment : [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] 1. The contemnor Shri. Khandu Punju Jadhav is charged for committing criminal contempt of the Court as defined under section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and punishable under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. Shri. K.P. Jadhav was convicted for offence punishable under section 13 (1) (e) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand), in default to Simple Imprisonment for three months in Special Case No. 86/1995. The judgment and order was delivered on 31st March 2008 by Shri. R. V. Jatale, Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dhule. 3. The contemnor preferred an appeal against the said judgment and order of conviction to the High Court. The appeal was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 130/2008. The appeal was admitted by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : Justice V.R. Kingaonkar) on 25th of April 2008. The contemnor filed Criminal Application No. 1306/2008 for grant of bail. By an order dated 25th of April 2008 the learned Single Judge of this Court suspended substantive sentence and released the contemnor on bail. 4. The contemnor addressed a communication dated 28th of January 2011 to Her Excellency Hon'ble the President of India and circulated its copies to various Hon'ble dignitaries, and Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. By a communication dated 25th of January 2011 the Registrar (Adm), Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court forwarded copy of communication written by the contemnor dated 28th of January 2011 to the office of Registrar of Bombay High Court for being placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders in view of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Chapter XXXIV, Part-II, 5 (f ) to (i). 5. By a communication dated 15th February 2011, Registrar (Judl-I) informed the Registrar (Judl), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad that Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to take cognizance under Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Chapter XXXIV, Part-II, 5 (f ) to (i). It was requested to take further steps in accordance with the Rules. 6. By a communication dated 15th February 2011, Registrar (Judl-I) informed the Registrar (Judl), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad that Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to take cognizance under Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Chapter XXXIV, Part-II, 5 (f ) to (i). It was requested to take further steps in accordance with the Rules. 6. By an order dated 22nd February 2011, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Justice P.V. Hardas and Justice A.V. Potdar) observed that offence punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act has been prima facie established against the contemnor. Registry was directed to issue bailable warrant against the contemnor. 7. By an order dated 18th of March 2011 the presence of the contemnor was recorded by this Court. This Court made preliminary inquiries with the contemnor in respect of reasons for writing such contemptuous communication in respect of the learned Judge Shri. R.V. Jatale. The proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 130/2008 was called for perusal of this Court on the said date. We recorded that during the interaction with the contemnor, no remorse was noticed in respect of objectionable writings communicated by the contemnor regarding the learned Judge Shri. R.V. Jatale. Learned Counsel Shri. S.B. Talekar, appointed as amicus curiae, had submitted that the allegations made by the contemnor against the learned Judge are highly contemptuous, scandalous and serious in nature and the contemnor is required to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. 8. We issued notice in Form-I as appended to the Contempt (Bombay High Court) Rules, against the contemnor, returnable on 29th of March 2011. It was observed that the contemnor was entitled to file reply in respect of notice issued to him. The Registry was directed to forward copies of the communications sent by the contemnor to the High Court along with the notice in Form-I. The contemnor was directed to remain personally present on the adjourned dates until further orders. 9. On 29th March 2011 the contemnor was present in the Court. The contemnor submitted that inquiry be initiated against the Judicial Officer Shri. R.V. Jatale by calling him in the Court in presence of the contemnor. 9. On 29th March 2011 the contemnor was present in the Court. The contemnor submitted that inquiry be initiated against the Judicial Officer Shri. R.V. Jatale by calling him in the Court in presence of the contemnor. It was the grievance of the contemnor that he had written several communications in respect of objectionable conduct of the learned Judicial Officer Shri. R.V. Jatale and inspite of the same, the concerned officers of the Court have not conducted the inquiry against Shri. R.V. Jatale. The charge in respect of the communication made on 28th January 2011 was framed against the contemnor to which he pleaded not guilty. 10. This Court provided one more opportunity to the contemnor and posted the hearing of the matter on 8th of April 2011 i.e. today. 11. The contemnor is present in the Court. He has submitted a written statement. The contemnor had already expressed his desire to look after his defence personally. The contemnor filed a written statement in his defence. After going through the written statement, it was noticed that the contemnor had specifically raised certain contentions which amounted to commit further contempt of Court and therefore, it was necessary/desirable to frame specific charge against the contemnor. Therefore, additional charge was accordingly framed which was explained to the contemnor. The contemnor pleaded not guilty to the said charge. 12. From the submissions advanced by the contemnor and the contents of written statement, we find that the contemnor is very much aware of the charge which was framed against him in respect of his objectionable communications made in respect of the learned Judge. 13. In the written statement, the contemnor submitted that Shri. R.V. Jatale manipulated the record and illegally convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment of two years and imposed fine of Rs. 20,000/-According to him, the application filed against Shri. R.V. Jatale would not amount to contempt of Court. It was submitted that Judges have conspired to protect Shri. R.V. Jatale and the Judges and Officers of the Court have flouted law and are behaving in dictatorial manner. The contemnor insisted for conducting inquiry of Shri. R.V. Jatale. It is submitted in writing by the contemnor that the learned Judge Shri. R.V. Jatale does not have good sense, which could be established by the contemnor. The learned Judge Shri. Jatale had violated human rights, therefore, he should be hanged till death. The contemnor insisted for conducting inquiry of Shri. R.V. Jatale. It is submitted in writing by the contemnor that the learned Judge Shri. R.V. Jatale does not have good sense, which could be established by the contemnor. The learned Judge Shri. Jatale had violated human rights, therefore, he should be hanged till death. Therefore, he prayed that it should be ordered that he should be hanged till death. The contemnor submitted that instead of inquiring into the conduct of Shri. R.V. Jatale, the Judges have conspired to initiate false cases against the contemnor. The contemnor had expressed that in the Judicial System the judges are behaving in dictatorial manner, misusing their position and if an inquiry is conducted against Shri. R.V. Jatale in presence of the contemnor, he would be in a position to establish his charges. 14. The contemnor further submitted that he belongs to scheduled caste (Mahar). In the concluding statement of written statement, the contemnor submitted that he had not committed contempt of Shri. R.V. Jatale, instead the learned Judge has committed contempt in writing, therefore, his conduct be inquired into as the Judge had committed criminal offence. 15. The contemnor during his oral submissions did not show any remorse in respect of objectionable communications made on 28th of January 2011 and the contemptuous statements made in the written statement filed before this Court today. The contemnor submitted that he has not committed contempt of the Court. He was found firm on his allegations made against Shri. R.V. Jatale. He stated that Shri. Jatale failed to understand the criminal case wherein the contemnor was accused. The contemnor had used very harsh, contemptuous, scandalizing remarks against Shri. R.V. Jatale, who was the Trial Judge in Special Case No. 86/1995 wherein the contemnor was accused. The contemnor submitted that Shri. R.V. Jatale did not understand the facts of the case and reached absolutely wrong and illegal conclusions. 16. The contemnor submitted that he is not keeping good health and it is difficult for him to attend the dates of hearing of the matter. He requested for expeditious hearing and disposal of the case. After providing appropriate and adequate opportunity to put up his case, we inquired with the contemnor, as to whether the contemnor would attend the next date for pronouncement of the judgment to which the contemnor expressed his desire that the judgment be delivered today itself. 17. He requested for expeditious hearing and disposal of the case. After providing appropriate and adequate opportunity to put up his case, we inquired with the contemnor, as to whether the contemnor would attend the next date for pronouncement of the judgment to which the contemnor expressed his desire that the judgment be delivered today itself. 17. The learned counsel Shri. A.T. Kanawade holding for Shri. Talekar placed on record copy of judgment reported in (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 1, Haridas Das Vs. Uash Rani Bank (SMT) and others. The learned APP Shri. D.V. Tele submitted that the writings of the contemnor under communication made on 28th of January 2011, and the written statement of the contemnor filed today and the oral submissions advanced by the contemnor clearly make out a case of contempt of court. The learned APP submitted that the writing and the submissions are highly objectionable, contemptuous in nature and amounts to scandalizing the Court, lower its dignity in the eye of public at large. The learned APP further submitted that the contemnor has no remorse in respect of contemptuous address made by him and inspite of providing appropriate opportunities the contemnor is not apologetic. 18. The provisions of section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act reads thus:- "(c) criminal contempt " means the publication (whether by words. spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which – (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court ; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner ; " 19. The contemnor was provided with adequate opportunities. Charge is framed against the contemnor and explained to him to which the contemnor pleaded not guilty. The contemnor was a police constable in the service of the State. By a judgment and order dated 31st of March 2008 he was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) r/w. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. His appeal filed against his order of conviction is still pending before this Court. The contemnor was a police constable in the service of the State. By a judgment and order dated 31st of March 2008 he was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) r/w. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. His appeal filed against his order of conviction is still pending before this Court. From the writing of communication made by the contemnor dated 28th of January 2011 and the written statement filed before this Court today, we are convinced to hold that the writings and the contentions raised in the written statement are highly contemptuous in nature. The contemnor, during the course of his submission had stated that he had written several such communications, but so far no inquiry was initiated against Shri. R. V. Jatale, the learned Judge, who passed judgment against the contemnor. We have noticed that the contemnor, has absolutely no remorse in respect of the objectionable communications made by him. The charge was framed against him and he was made aware about the nature of the contempt proceedings. The contemnor being a constable must be aware of the judicial proceedings conducted in the Trial Court. The contemnor had filed appeal against the order of conviction and sentence which is still pending in this Court and the contemnor is on bail under the orders passed by the High Court pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal. 20. Perusal of the objectionable writings of the contemnor and the written statement/reply signed by the contemnor filed in response to the notice issued by this Court, we find that it amounts to scurrilous attacks on the integrity, honesty, judicial competence and impartiality of the concerned Judge, who convicted and sentenced the contemnor. The language used is offensive and intimidating. It amounts to bringing down the institution to disrespect and disrepute. It impairs confidence of the people in the Court. If such conduct is allowed to go unnoticed then it may provide handle to the disgruntled to malign the Judges leading to character assassination. 21. We are referring to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Haridas Das cited supra. Para 1, 28 and 30 of the said judgment reads as under:- "Judge bashing" and using derogatory and contemptuous language against Judges has become a favourite pastime of some people. 21. We are referring to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Haridas Das cited supra. Para 1, 28 and 30 of the said judgment reads as under:- "Judge bashing" and using derogatory and contemptuous language against Judges has become a favourite pastime of some people. These statements tend to scandalise and lower the authority of the courts and cannot be permitted because, for functioning of democracy, an independent judiciary to dispense justice without fear and favour is paramount. Its strength is the faith and confidence of the people in that institution. That cannot be permitted to be undermined because that will be against the public interest. 28. Judiciary is the bedrock and handmaid of democracy. If people lose faith in justice parted by a court of law, the entire democratic setup would crumble down. In this background, observations of Lord Denning, M.R. in Metropolitan Properties Ltd. V. Lannon are relevant : (ALL ER p. 310 D) "Justice must be rooted in confidence; and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking : "The Judge was biased." 30. Majesty of law continues to hold its head high notwithstanding such scurrilous attacks made by person who feel that the law courts will absorb anything and everything, including attacks on their honesty, integrity and impartiality. But it has to be born in mind that such divinity and magnanimity is not its weakness but its strength. It generally ignores irresponsible statements which are anything but legitimate criticism. It is to be noted that what is permissible is legitimate criticism and not illegitimate insinuation. No court can brook with equanimity something which may have tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. Some people find judiciary a soft target because it has neither the power of the purse nor the sword, which other wings of democracy possess. It needs no reiteration that on judiciary millions pin their hopes, for protecting their life, liberty, property and the like. Judges do not have an easy job. They repeatedly do what rest of us (the people) seek to avoid, make decisions, said David Pannick in his book Judges. Judges are mere mortals, but they are asked to perform a function which is truly divine." 22. Judges do not have an easy job. They repeatedly do what rest of us (the people) seek to avoid, make decisions, said David Pannick in his book Judges. Judges are mere mortals, but they are asked to perform a function which is truly divine." 22. Considering the material placed on record, the written submission and the oral submission of the contemnor and the submissions advanced by the learned APP, we are of the view that the contemnor has committed criminal contempt as defined under section 2(c) of the Contempts of Courts Act. The conduct of the contemnor attracts punishment for committing the contempt of court punishable under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. 23. The contemnor is aged person. He stated that he is not keeping good health. Considering his age and health condition, lenient view needs to be taken while awarding the sentence. Hence, we pass following order. (1) The Contemnor Shri. Khandu Punju Jadhav is convicted for committing contempt of Court punishable under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (2) He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. (3) The contemnor to be taken in police custody for execution of the order.