Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 327 (ALL)

IN RE v. SACHIN KUMAR DIXIT, ADVOCATE, KANPUR

2013-01-29

DHARNIDHAR JHA, MAHENDRA DAYAL

body2013
Dharnidhar Jha, J. 1. The present contempt criminal proceeding against Sachin Kumar Dixit and Sabya Sachi Haldhar was initiated by the court by an order passed on 23.02.2011 on the report of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.-7, Sri Amit Kumar Singh forwarded by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar with his report dated 09.12.2010. 2. In his report dated 22.04.2010, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ( ACMM for short) has reported that in Case Crime No. 46 of 2010, State Vs. Smt. Rinki, under Section 323, 325 and 504 I.P.C., the accused Smt. Rinki Verma surrendered herself to the custody of the court on 07.04.2010 and made a prayer for bail by filing a petition to that effect. The prayer was opposed by Sachin Kumar Dixit, who was a Practicing Advocate in the said Court and is the brother of the injured. He was accompanied by other contemnor Sabya Sachi Haldhar and 30-35 other unknown advocates and started pressurising the Presiding Judge to reject the prayer for bail of the accused. The Presiding Judge was of the view that all sections of offences being bailable, he could never reject the prayer for bail upon which the advocates present inside the court room, created a pandemonious situation and raised scale of their pressure upon the court to reject the prayer for bail and in case the same was not done, then wanted the court that the bail bond be sent for verification so that accused, who had surrendered, was sent to jail. 3. The court did not yield to the pressures and directed the admission of the accused Smt. Rinki Verma to bail on execution of a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each. When the bond was furnished, the advocates appearing for the informant and their other accompanying advocates came into the court rook to question the sureties, who had come to furnish their bonds as fake and at the same time the informant also filed an application for seeking the verification of the bond and the sureties and kept pressurising the court not to accept the bond so that the accused was sent to prison. The advocates entered inside the Chambers of the Presiding Judge when he refixed to it due to pandemonium and raised the pitch of their voice for pressurising him so that the accused was sent to prison. 4. It was reported by Sri Amit Singh, the ACMM that the two contemnors alongwith 30-35 advocates caused interruption in the judicial proceeding and pressurised the court illegally to reject the prayer for bail. The court atmosphere was vitiated by the shouts and shrieks of the advocates. The oral information of which was given to the higher officer also. 5. It appears that after receipt of the above report of the ACMM, Court no.-7, Kanpur Nagar which was forwarded to this Court by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar by his Memo No. PA-19 dated 30.04.2010. This court by its letters no. 10385/2010/Admin 'G-1' dated 02.07.2010 and 19018/2010/Admin 'G-1' dated 29.11.2010 requested the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar to hold an enquiry and submit a report. Accordingly, the learned District Judge proceeded to summon Sri Munna Lal, Advocate who appeared for accused-Smt. Rinki Verma, and one Ashok Kesharwani who had also a case listed before the aforesaid Court of the ACMM. It was reported by the learned District Judge that the statements of above noted persons revealed that Sri Sachin Kumar Dixit, Advocate and Sri Sabya Sachi Haldhar, advocate alongwith 30-35 other advocates created nuisance and interrupted the judicial proceedings and made all endeavours to pressurise the court in order to reject the bail application of Smt. Rinki Verma in a bailable offence. It was after the receipt of the above noted report and the annexed copies of statements that the court took cognizance of the acts of contempt of the two contemnors, Sachin Kumar Dixit and Sabya Sachi Haldhar by its order dated 23.03.2011 by directing issuance of noties to them to show cause "as to why they should not be punished for committing criminal contempt in interrupting the judicial proceedings and trying to interfere with the administration of justice as mentioned above." 6. In pursuance to the notices, the two contemnors appeared and filed their respective counter affidavits in reply to the allegation contained against them in the report submitted by ACMM and as reported by the learned District Judge after holding inquiry as noted above. 7. The sum and substance of the replies of both the contemnors is same. In pursuance to the notices, the two contemnors appeared and filed their respective counter affidavits in reply to the allegation contained against them in the report submitted by ACMM and as reported by the learned District Judge after holding inquiry as noted above. 7. The sum and substance of the replies of both the contemnors is same. Sabya Sachi Haldhar had stated that he was also a Practicing Lawyer as was contemnor Sachin Kumar Dixit and was practicing in the Civil Courts, Kanpur Nagar under the guidance of Sri S. L. Dixit, whom he had described as Senior Lawyer of the Civil Court, Kanpur Nagar and that he was counsel of Sachin Kumar Dixit and he had been implicated in the present case on that account. Both the contemnors submitted that the father of Sachin Kumar Dixit, had lodged a non-cognizable case against the wife of Sunil Verma, R/o12/154, Gwal Toli, police Station Gwal Toli, Kanpur Nagar and that report was registered by the police. The medical report indicated serious injury and section 325 was added to the report. It was admitted by both of them that the accused of the above noted case moved an application for bail in the Court of ACMM, Court No. 7, Kanpur Nagar and an objection was raised by Sachin Kumar Dixit,Advocate to the contents of the application and to grant of the prayer in writing. The contemnor annexed the copies of the bail application raising objection as annexures to their replies. 8. It was submitted by both of them that the injured of the case was the brother of Sachin Kumar Dixit, a Practicing Lawyer in the Civil Court, Kanpur Nagar and as such, Sachin Kumar Dixit was in mental agony due to his brother having been in serious condition. As such, a number of requests were made to the Presiding Officer to seek a report regarding the incident from the concerned police station, but the request was ignored and bail was granted. The court was also requested that the sureties were false and fabricated and as such the bonds furnished by them, at least, be sent for verification, but the request was not heeded to in spite of a written prayer being made in that behalf. The contemnors have also annexed the copy of the application, requesting the court to get the sureties verified to their replies. 9. The contemnors have also annexed the copy of the application, requesting the court to get the sureties verified to their replies. 9. It was submitted by both the contemnors that unfortunately at the time when the hearing on the prayer for bail was going on in the concerned court at 2.00 p.m., the Bar Association of Civil Court, Kanpur Nagar decided to abstain from judicial work of all courts of the district against the arbitrary lathi charge upon the advocates by the local police within the premises of the District Court during which large number of advocates were injured as a result of which, different groups of advocates started entering into different courts for making requests to the Presiding Officers not to work and it was not untrue that 30-35 advocates also entered Court No. 7 of the ACMM and that was the main reason that the working of the court was hampered. 10. It was stated by Contemnor-Sabya Sachi Haldhar, Advocate that he was also injured in the lathi charge while he was coming to the above noted court to attend the hearing of the case and he was not present in the Court room when the bail application was moved or the application for verification of the sureties were filed or moved. Both the contemnors have further stated that the advocates absented themselves from judicial work for 40 days and during that period the jurisdiction of the District Court was shifted to District Court, Etawa. Both the contemnors stated that they had not committed any act of contempt and had only made a request to the Presiding Officer, but due to gathering of the advocates to boycott the court due to lathi charge made by police upon the advocates of the Civil Court, Kanpur Nagar. 11. Both the contemnors submitted that they had faith and extraordinary regards for the Court and they may not even imagine of exhibiting an attitude which could be against the honour of the Court. 12. 11. Both the contemnors submitted that they had faith and extraordinary regards for the Court and they may not even imagine of exhibiting an attitude which could be against the honour of the Court. 12. The charges were framed by the Court on 06.07.2011 against the two contemnors and subsequently, it was found that the report submitted by the learned District Judge after holding enquiry on the direction of this court had not been made over to them and as such, it was directed by order dated 17.12.2012 to furnish the copies of statements alongwith copies of the report of the learned District Judge by his letter No. 2331/7-I/dt.09.12.2010 so that they may reply to the contents thereof. 13. The contemnors filed their replies again, which does not contain any further statement on the acts of vandalising the court proceedings by mobbing the Court Room and the Chambers of the Presiding Judge so as to pressurising him either to reject the prayer for bail or to send the bonds of the sureties for verification so that accused Smt. Rinki Verma remanded to custody. 14. What we find is that the statements made in the supplementary counter affidavit does not state anything except the merits of allegation and counter allegation in connection with the case in which the accused has surrendered in court for bail. It has been admitted, as may appear from the counter affidavit, filed by Sabya Sachi Haldhar that he was a counsel for opposite party no. 1 and besides being colleague as well and what further appears to the Court is that Sabya Sachi Haldhar is working as a junior to Sri Satrughan Lal Dixit, who was the father of Sri Sachin Kumar Dixit. This appears form the application filed by Sachin Kumar Dixit in the Court of the ACMM on 07.04.2010 requesting him to send the bond for verification. The appearance might have been denied by Sri Sabya Sachi Haldhar in the court room by stating that he was hit in police lathi charge and was injured. But, he had himself admitted that he was appearing for the other contemnor Sri Sachin Kumar Dixit as counsel in the case. The appearance might have been denied by Sri Sabya Sachi Haldhar in the court room by stating that he was hit in police lathi charge and was injured. But, he had himself admitted that he was appearing for the other contemnor Sri Sachin Kumar Dixit as counsel in the case. The petition by way of objecting to the prayer for granting bail and subsequent petition requesting the ACMM to send the bonds of the sureties for verification, were filed by Sachin Kumar Dixit and not by Sabya Sachi Haldhar. It has not been mentioned any where in the report made by the ACMM or the District Judge that Sabya Sachi Haldhar was appearing in the Court Room during hearing of the prayer for bail of Smt. Rinki Verma, as such the denial of Sabya Sachi Haldhar of that fact is of no consequence and of no concern by this court as well. 15. It has been reported by the ACMM and which fact has been found true by the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in his report submitted at the direction of this Court after holding inquiry that the accused had appeared in a case in which all offences were bailable. The report indicated that the two contemnors, namely, Sachin Kumar Dixit and Sabya Sachi Haldhar had come to pressurise the court alongwith 30-35 other advocates so as to getting an order of rejection of prayer for bail. The court was inclined to grant bail, as it had to be in a case of bailable offences and accordingly, he directed the admission of the accused to bail on furnishing a particular bond of the sum and sureties as indicated in his report upon which the objections were also filed to further pressurise the court to send the bond for verification. 16. The contemnor Sachin Kumar Dixit does not deny that objections were filed and further application was filed for sending the bonds for verification. Sabya Sachi Haldhar, the other contemnor denied his appearance and thus, averred that he was not present in court at any stage of proceeding. But what appears from paragraph 2A of his counter affidavit is that he had admitted being counsel of contemnor Sachin Kumar Dixit. Sabya Sachi Haldhar, the other contemnor denied his appearance and thus, averred that he was not present in court at any stage of proceeding. But what appears from paragraph 2A of his counter affidavit is that he had admitted being counsel of contemnor Sachin Kumar Dixit. The court finds that the written objection, which was filed by Sachin Kumar Dixit, which was filed in court was under the signature of Sachin Kumar Dixit but it was also bearing the signature of Sabya Sachi Haldhar. The other petition seeking the indulgence of the court to send the bond for verification before the same was accepted, is also dated 07.04.2010 was definitely signed by Sachin Kumar Dixit but the identification of Sachin Kumar Dixit was made by the same Sabya Sachi Haldhar. As such, the Court finds it very difficult to accept the contention of Sabya Sachi Haldhar that he was not present in Court Room as he had been hit and injured in police lathi charge. Moreover, none of the contemnors had annexed any copy of the Local Bar Association Resolution indicating that a resolution had been taken by them for any particular reason to abstain from judicial work. Likewise, none of them had annexed with his affidavit, the copy of injury report or nay medical prescription in respect of injury which could have been found by the doctor caused to Sabya Sachi Haldhar in the lathi charge as was claimed by him to be caused to him as appears from paragraph 12 of his affidavit. Thus, the preponderance of the probability tilt towards the statement contained in the report that both the contemnors were present in the court room. 17. A counsel who appears for a litigant has a right to place the cause of his client before a court with all vehemence and persuasion at his command. He has a right to use all logics available to him to persuade a judge to accept the reasons which are pointed out by him for granting any of the prayers or accepting the view which is canvassed by the counsel upon the Court in the interest of the litigant for whom he stands in the Court room. He has a right to use all logics available to him to persuade a judge to accept the reasons which are pointed out by him for granting any of the prayers or accepting the view which is canvassed by the counsel upon the Court in the interest of the litigant for whom he stands in the Court room. While appearing before the court, no lawyer is supposed to be subservient to either the court or the Presiding Judge so that he could be stopped from putting forward his arguments only because the court may be against him. Even in a case where the court is found by a counsel not persuaded enough to agree to the views of the counsel, he is not expected to be discourteous to the Court or to fling hot words or epithets or use disrespectful, derogatory or threatening language or exhibit temper which has the effect of overbearing the Court. A lawyer has always to be submissive, humble, persuading and dignified in his submissions, not indulging either in show of temper or in use of unbecoming language. These were some of the aspect of a counsel's appearance in court which were pointed out by the Apex Court In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, reported in 1995 ( 2) SCC 584 . 18. In the present case, the reports of the District Judge and the ACMM on the basis of which the present proceedings had been initiated or the evidence of witnesses as to what really had happened in the court room and how the judge had been pressurised, were made over to the contemnors, but they do not appear making any statement that the incident had not occurred in the manner as was found during the enquiry conducted by the learned District Judge and they had only made statements on the merits of a criminal case. We find that the reports had been made by the Judges regarding behaviour of a counsel in pressurising a court in passing a particular order. 19. Irrespective of the nature of offences, it could be within the discretion of a Court either to reject or grant the prayer for bail of an accused. We find that the reports had been made by the Judges regarding behaviour of a counsel in pressurising a court in passing a particular order. 19. Irrespective of the nature of offences, it could be within the discretion of a Court either to reject or grant the prayer for bail of an accused. No party to the proceeding or no person who could have the authority to appear in any part of the proceeding could be entitled to disclose terms with a court to pass a particular order, only because he has some personal stake in the decision making process. If the court proceeds to pass a particular order which in its wisdom appears the just order to be passed under the facts and circumstances of a particular case, it may not be a sufficient cause or lawful right of a person to create pandemonious situation or to react to the orders of a court in a manner as to create pandemonium in the court room by shouting at the judge so much so as to pushing him back into the chambers. No advocate should have a right to enter inside the chambers of a judge and to go berserk so as to showing reaction or, personal or collective disapproval of orders passed by a Judge. In fact, the very pressurising of a judge to reject the prayer for bail in the present case with an ulterior motive of sending the accused to prison where the offences being bailable was enough to constitute the act of contempt as it was not only undermining the authority of the court rather it was a direct attack on the independence of the judiciary and the judge who is supposed to act without any fear or favour or any ill-will against either of the parties. A judge may be a person, but he is always accept himself. Pressurising the court was out and out a clear act of contempt. 20. In the same case of Vinay Chandra Misra ( supra), the supreme Court was also pointing out that when the report was made by the Judge about an incident which had occurred in his court room, there was no need of the judge being examined or allowed to be cross-examined. 20. In the same case of Vinay Chandra Misra ( supra), the supreme Court was also pointing out that when the report was made by the Judge about an incident which had occurred in his court room, there was no need of the judge being examined or allowed to be cross-examined. This court simply wants to reiterate the settled law that reports of a judge in such a case and the report which may be submitted after holding an enquiry as had been done in the present case could be sufficient evidence to judge the acts of contempt against a contemnor. In the present case; the court placed reliance upon the inquiry-report submitted by the District Judge and the enquiry was held so as to testing the report made by ACMM regarding the reported contemptuous behaviour and incident which had occurred in the Court Room and his Chambers on account of not yielding to the illegal pressures of the advocates. It was clearly an act undermining the authority of the court and it was also an act which was as an attempt to scandalise the court so as to put it under pressure and obtain an order from the Presiding judge, only because the counsel had an interest in the litigation. 21. We hold both the contemnors guilty of the act of contempt. 22. While we were hearing the present proceeding, it was submitted time and again that the two contemnors were young advocates and they have their carrier before them and their unqualified apology be accepted. But we find that such incidents are frequently being reported form almost all judgeships of the State and the advocates appeared not allowing the judges to transact daily business in different proceedings. The power to punish contempt of courts has been created for upholding the dignity of the Court and the justicing system which we have adopted for ourselves to run the democracy and the power to punish acts of contempt has been inherently given to the High Court and the Supreme Court. Tendering apology may not be allowed to be employed as a ploy for getting away from punishment after committing acts of contempt. Tendering apology may not be allowed to be employed as a ploy for getting away from punishment after committing acts of contempt. The facts of the case, specially, the evidence recorded by the District Judge indicates that the contemnors and their colleagues were so much annoyed and had become disrespectful to the order of the Court and the Court itself that they had gone berserk and the police had to be called up to bring the situation under control. It was an incident which had paralysed the functioning of the judgeship for 40 days, as admitted by the contemnors. All hell had been let loose only because the Judge was not yielding to the illegal pressures of the contemnors and his companions. 23. Considering the above circumstances, we reject the tender of unqualified apology and punish each of the contemnors, to undergo simple imprisonment for one and half months, that's, for forty five days and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-( one thousand) each. In case of not paying the fine, each of them shall have to undergo further simple imprisonment for fifteen days each. 24. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar for information and necessary compliance of the directions contained herein. 25. The present proceeding stands disposed of.