Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 4061 (ALL)

In Re: Mohammad Shoeb Siddiqui v. .

2015-12-18

B.K.SRIVASTAVA II, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. This criminal contempt proceeding under Section 15 (2) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been initiated on a Reference dated 30.10.2013 made by Mamta Singh, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 18, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Referring Court') complaining about certain acts of Mohammad Shoeb Siddiqui, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as 'Contemnor'), practising in District Judgeship Gorakhpur. It is stated that on 23.10.2013 when examination of witnesses in Original Suit No. 652 of 2007 Chhedi Vs. Jawahar' was going on between 12.30-1.00 p.m. Contemnor appeared in Court in presence of several advocates and litigants and said in loud voice in respect to an order dated 23.10.2013 passed in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2013 (Danish Aqeel Vs. Tarannum), which was against client of Contemnor that how could she pass such order. When Referring Court attempted to stop Contemnor stating that examination of witnesses is going on in another matter, please keep silence, Contemnor used indecent language and said that order has been passed by taking bribe and he will get her suspended and thrown out of job. She does not know Contemnor. Referring Court and advocates tried to pacify Contemnor but he continued shouting making allegations of bribe etc. upon Referring Court which not only disturbed Court proceedings but has lowered down authority of the Court. 2. Aforesaid Reference was forwarded by District Judge, Gorakhpur on 30.10.2013. Referring Court also appended photocopy of the order sheet dated 23.10.2013 in which she noticed above conduct shown by Contemnor, which reads as under: "File has been placed. Argument was being recorded. During course of argument, counsel Shoeb Akhtar, Advocate, appeared in Court and started shouting loudly regarding an order dated 22.10.2013 passed in Original Suit No. 72/2013 Danish Shakeel Versus Tarannum and alleged me with a charge of taking bribe. Therefore, due to his uncourteous conduct, the court work has interrupted. Threats of getting me suspended and terminated from service have been given by him. The court work has obstructed. Therefore, for remaining argument, let case be placed on 27-1-13." [English Translation by Court] 3. Therefore, due to his uncourteous conduct, the court work has interrupted. Threats of getting me suspended and terminated from service have been given by him. The court work has obstructed. Therefore, for remaining argument, let case be placed on 27-1-13." [English Translation by Court] 3. Reference was considered on Administrative Side and three Judges' Committee of this Court, finding a prima-facie case of criminal contempt recommended further action which was approved by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 03.03.2014 whereafter the matter was placed before a Division Bench who passed order dated 12.03.2014 issuing notice to Contemnor to show cause, why proceedings for criminal contempt may not be initiated against him. Court observed that prima facie, totality of circumstances reflects that due to act of Contemnor, stated in Reference, dignity of Court has been lowered down and deliberate and wilful attempt has been made to interfere with administration of justice. 4. Contemnor put in appearance and besides personally present was also represented by Sri A.N. Bhargava, Advocate. He filed a counter affidavit sworn on 15.05.2014 stating that on 22.10.2013 Presiding Officer rejected application No. 6-C in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2013 Danish Aqeel Vs. Smt. Tarannum and others' which had arisen from ex-parte decree passed in Original Suit No. 655 of 2008, Contemnor reminded Presiding Officer with submissive language at the moment of rejection that Court's order is not legally sustainable and he would challenge it before superior Court. Contemnor advised his client to prefer a revision before District Judge, Gorakhpur against order dated 22.10.2013. Contemnor never appeared in Referring Court on 23.10.2013 as alleged in her letter dated 30.10.2013. Contemnor had also neither used any contemptuous language of threatening nor interrupted functioning of Court, as alleged. Allegations are false, concocted, mala fide and afterthought. They appear to have been inserted in order sheet dated 23.10.2013 of Original Suit No. 652 of 2007 Chhedi Vs. Jawahar'. Order sheet shows that some words have been inserted therein. After 22.10.2013, several cases of Contemnor were listed before same Presiding Officer on various subsequent dates i.e. 12.11.2013, 19.11.2013, 28.11.2013 and 11.12.2013 but Presiding Officer never pointed out any such conduct to Contemnor who has always been very submissive in language showing high respect to judicial system. Further order dated 22.10.2013 passed in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2013 was challenged in Revision No. 211 of 2013 Danish Aqeel Vs. Further order dated 22.10.2013 passed in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2013 was challenged in Revision No. 211 of 2013 Danish Aqeel Vs. Smt. Tarannum and others' before District Judge, Gorakhpur, who allowed revision and set aside order dated 22.10.2013 by Revisional Court's order dated 03.04.2014. Contemnor after receiving notice from this Court, discussed matter with his client who disclosed that he has sent a complaint dated 24.10.2013 to Chief Justice about conduct of Presiding Officer and a copy of said letter is placed on record as Annexure-CA-4. Proceeding on said complaint, Contemnor's client received a notice dated 29.10.2013 from Senior Administrative Officer, District Judgeship Gorakhpur requiring complainant Mohammad Ali to appear before District Judge on 01.11.2013. It appears that on this misconception and under mala fide plea that said complaint was at the instance of Contemnor, Presiding Officer after insertion of some concocted language in the order sheet dated 23.10.2013, as an afterthought, forwarded matter to this Court for Criminal Contempt though Contemnor has never committed such act. He further said that Contemnor has never advised his client to send any complaint to this Court or anywhere except advised for filing a revision. Contemnor is innocent. He is practising in Civil Court, Gorakhpur for last twenty nine years and never such types of allegations were heard or alleged against him. He has not committed any such act in Court of Presiding Officer who is acting malafidely and personal grudge appears to be outcome of complaint made by Contemnor's client at his own level. It is also said that though Contemnor is innocent and has never committed any contemptuous act yet he tenders unconditional apology. 5. Since Contemnor has denied very allegation stating that on 23.10.2013 he has not appeared before Referring Court and no such incident has taken place, learned Counsel nominated by this Court to assist sought time to obtain comments from Referring Court. Presiding Officer, Mamta Singh sent reply vide letter dated 15.11.2014 in which she explained entire thing in following words: "2. Since Contemnor has denied very allegation stating that on 23.10.2013 he has not appeared before Referring Court and no such incident has taken place, learned Counsel nominated by this Court to assist sought time to obtain comments from Referring Court. Presiding Officer, Mamta Singh sent reply vide letter dated 15.11.2014 in which she explained entire thing in following words: "2. That being aggrieved by the order passed by me on 22-10-13 the learned Advocate Mohammad Shoyeb Siddique the opposite party on above mentioned contempt proceeding appeared on just second day on i.e. 23-10-2013 in my court and began to shout with full voice and hurl allegation of taking bribe by me and threatened me to get me suspended and dismissed from the service then I referred the contempt before the Hon'ble court. 3. The opposite party has filed counter affidavit appearing before Hon'ble court and he has submitted that he never appeared in my court and the incident which has been shown is false and concocted. For this allegation he has taken support of the insertion of the some ---Hindi---) fact in the ordersheet dated 23-10-2014. 4. In para 10 of counter affidavit in my hand he has given the reason for insertion of the above alleged concocted language in the order sheet. The reason given by him is that his client had given written complaint before the Hon'ble High Court and contemnor under this misconception that complaint had been given on my advice she inserted the above line which is having no ground reality. 5. Hon'ble High Court taking this fact into notice has called reply from me on this point the reply is as follows- (a) I admit that in the order sheet dated 23-10-2014 I had inserted between the lines the following sentences (---Hindi---) The reason for this insertion was that for the first time in my service tenure, I was facing such a nevatively charged non-judicial atmosphere and hence due to the upset state of mind, I could not write all the words which he was continuously arrowing towards me amidst the public present in my court. He had used so many humiliating words but while writing the order sheet I could not gather all the words, because at the time of incident I was handling the file O.S. No. 652/2007 Chhedi Vs. He had used so many humiliating words but while writing the order sheet I could not gather all the words, because at the time of incident I was handling the file O.S. No. 652/2007 Chhedi Vs. Jawahir and the Advocate of above mentioned file were repeatedly requesting me to give the date then I had to hurriedly write the incident in the ordersheet of the above file, whatever came in my memory and gave the date to advocate but soon after, the inserted statement which he was repeating again and again flashed into my mind and then after I had to insert the above mentioned sentence in the space of the two lines. (b) The opposite party wants to take advantage of this hurriedness. The facts is that on the day he had spoken too much words hostile to the dignity of the court which I could not write every thing in the order sheet due to the shortage of space in the ordersheet. (c) The opposite party has said in para 10 of counter affidavit that I was motivated to draw contempt proceeding against the opposite party because his client had given complaint against the contemnor to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court and she was under the impression that a complaint over given a my voice. But this allegation is false. Because I was in receipt of the complaint of client second day after the incident. In other words, I got the copy of complaint from office of District Judge on 25-10-2014 (Annexure-1) while this incident happened on 23-10-14 and the same day (on 23-10-14) I intimated forthwith about the incident in writing to the District Judge Annexure-2 along with the copy of the ordersheet (Annexure-3). Hence then is no any question of falsely implicating the opposite party so his allegation that I falsely inserted the line ”---Hindi--- have no stand because on the day of incident I had send the copy of the ordersheet to the District Judge and there was no any occasion for me to insert anything otherwise. What the opposite party has said in the counter affidavit is having no reality grounds are false, the story in concocted." 6. Besides she also filed an affidavit sworn on 21.12.2014 and therein paras 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10, she said as under: "4. What the opposite party has said in the counter affidavit is having no reality grounds are false, the story in concocted." 6. Besides she also filed an affidavit sworn on 21.12.2014 and therein paras 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10, she said as under: "4. That the part of contents of paragraph No. 3 of the counter affidavit in which opposite party had denied the incident dated 23.10.2013 is totally false infact the incident and the words spoken by the opposite party as mentioned by the deponent in the reference letter are correct. 5. That with regard to the contents of paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit it is submitted that a perusal of the contents shows that in fact after rejection of application 6C in Misc. case No. 72 of 2013 (Danish Aakil Vs. Smt. Tarranum) by order dated 22.10.2013, the opposite party appeared before the deponent at the time of hearing contents of paragraph No. 4 will be referred to, in fact opposite party appeared in the court of deponent while the deponent was hearing original suit No. 652 of 2007 Chhedi Vs. Jawahar, the opposite party not only threatened the deponent but also interfered in administration of justice. It is further made clear that in the order sheet she has made certain words before signing the order sheet as for the first time in the service tenure of deponent, the deponent came across with such a situation which has not only lower down the majesty of the court and also upset the deponent for some time. Opposite party used so many humiliating words but while writing the order sheet the deponent could not remember all the words. While the deponent was writing the order sheet the deponent was again and again repeating the same words and as such they have been inserted in the order sheet between the lines. 8. That with regard to the contents of paragraph No. 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit it is clarified that the deponent by letter dated 23.10.2013 informed the learned District Judge Gorakhpur about the incident took place in the court presided over by the deponent as such it is wrong to say that on coming to know about the complaint dated 24.10.2013 the deponent sent the reference through letter dated 30.10.2013. Copy of letter dated 23.10.2013 which was received in the office of District Judge Gorakhpur on 24.10.2013 was also sent by the deponent alongwith reference letter. 9. That the contents of paragraph No. 12 of the counter affidavit are not correctly stated and are denied. Infact the deponent referred the matter for taking action against the opposite party according to law without any ill will or malice as against the opposite party. Allegation to the contrary regarding personal grudge of the deponent against the opposite party is totally false nor the opposite party brought on record any instance of personal grudge of deponent against opposite party. 10. That the contents of paragraph No. 13 of the counter affidavit are totally false hence denied. The opposite party has acted in a manner in a court of law which has not only scandalized the court but also lower down the majesty of law courts besides he interfered in administration of justice. The apology tendered in the paragraph under reply is not a bonafide one and liable to be rejected by this Hon'ble Court." 7. Contemnor then filed an affidavit sworn on 30.04.2015 replying to affidavit of Referring Court reiterating his stand that he has not committed any contemptuous act on 23.10.2013 or ever against Judicial Officer Smt. Mamta Singh. 8. After considering entire matter this Court took a view that prima facie there is a case of 'criminal contempt' on the part of Contemnor and thus he was charged vide Court's order dated 07.05.2015 as under: "That you Mohammad Shoeb Siddiqui, Advocate, on 23.10.2013 while the Court was recording the evidence in original Suit No. 652 of 2007 (Chhedi Vs. Jawahir) you appeared in the Court room and in presence of Advocates and Litigants and started saying in high tone questioning the authority of the court in respect of passing an order dated 23.10.2013 in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2013 Aqueel Vs. Jawahir) you appeared in the Court room and in presence of Advocates and Litigants and started saying in high tone questioning the authority of the court in respect of passing an order dated 23.10.2013 in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2013 Aqueel Vs. Tarannum and said "IS TARAH KA ADESH TUMNE KAISE PARIT KAR DIYA" when the court tried to control the situation you started speaking indecent language and said "TUMNE PAISE LEKAR ADESH PARIT KAR DIYA MAIN TUMHE SUSPEND KARA DOONGA, NAUKRI SE NIKALWAN DOONGA TUM MUJHE NAHI JANTI HO", the court and other advocates present in the Court tried to pacify you but you "ZOR-ZOR SE CHILLATE RAHE AUR PAISA LENE KA AROP LAGATE RAHE WA SUSPEND KARANE AUR NAUKRI SE NIKALWANE KI DHAMKI DETE RAHE", your conduct aforesaid amounts to scandalizing the court, lower downing the authority of the Court as well as you have created obstruction in administration of justice. Thus you have committed criminal contempt defined Under Section 2(C) read with Section 14 , 15 of Contempt of Court Act, punishable Under Section 12 of the Act." 9. Contemnor filed reply to charge vide affidavit sworn on 10.08.2015. In para 4 of affidavit dated 10.08.2015 Contemnor has reiterated by referring to his earlier affidavits dated 05.05.2015 and 30.04.2015 and has requested to treat the same as part of his reply to charge. He has then said that order in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2013 was passed on 22.10.2013 hence he had no occasion to go in Referring Court on 23.10.2013 and show conduct as complained by Presiding Officer. In support of his defence, he has referred to insertion of certain words in order sheet dated 23.10.2013 in Original Suit No. 652 of 2007 which was sent by Referring Court along with Reference letter dated 30.10.2013. It is said that totally false case has been set up by Presiding Officer against Contemnor due to annoyance for complaint made by Contemnor's client. He has also filed evidence of three advocates, Sri Naimul Hasan Siddiqui, Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma and Sri Rajneesh Kumar Shukla, who claimed to be present in Referring Court on 23.1.2013 stating that no such incident occurred on that day and Contemnor has not appeared in Court. These affidavits are filed as Annexures-1, 2 and 3 to reply affidavit. He has also filed evidence of three advocates, Sri Naimul Hasan Siddiqui, Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma and Sri Rajneesh Kumar Shukla, who claimed to be present in Referring Court on 23.1.2013 stating that no such incident occurred on that day and Contemnor has not appeared in Court. These affidavits are filed as Annexures-1, 2 and 3 to reply affidavit. It is thus said that entire allegations are false and his reply as also supporting evidence make it clear that false allegations have been levelled against him by Presiding Officer though no contempt has been committed by Contemnor. Lastly it is said that in case Court finds Contemnor guilty, he is tendering unconditional apology and seeks pardon. 10. We have heard Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel nominated by this Court for assistance and Sri A.N. Bhargava, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Contemnor, as also Contemnor who is present in person. 11. Sri Mehrotra submitted that entire case, as is evident from Reference and affidavit filed by the Presiding Officer, shows that Contemnor has shown an act on 23.10.2013 in Referring Court, which amounts to 'criminal contempt' and, therefore, he is liable for punishment. 12. Per contra Sri Bhargava very heavily relied on order sheet, urged that a bare perusal shows that certain words have been inserted therein, meaning thereby allegations of contempt leveled against Contemnor are false. He further referred to affidavits of three advocates which he has filed along with affidavit dated 10.08.2015 replying charge and said that case of Contemnor is that he did not go to Referring Court on 23.10.2013, hence question of any occurrence does not arise and entire allegations are absolutely false. 13. We have heard respective counsel and perused record. In our view two questions apparently have arisen: (i) Whether Contemnor attended Court of Smt. Mamta Singh, Presiding Officer of Referring Court on 23.11.2013? (ii) Whether Contemnor acted in the manner as stated in Reference made by Court below showing conduct which amounts to "criminal contempt" as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act, 1971. 14. We propose to consider both the above questions together. In very first affidavit sworn on 05.05.2014 Contemnor in para 4 has admitted to have commented upon Smt. Mamta Singh, Presiding Officer of Referring Court in respect to order dated 22.10.2013 passed in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2013. 14. We propose to consider both the above questions together. In very first affidavit sworn on 05.05.2014 Contemnor in para 4 has admitted to have commented upon Smt. Mamta Singh, Presiding Officer of Referring Court in respect to order dated 22.10.2013 passed in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2013. Para 4 reads as under: "...the deponent had only reminded the P.O. with submissive language on that movement of rejection that order of Hon'ble Court is not legally sustainable and that would be challenged before the superior court... 15. This para 4 of affidavit dated 05.05.2014 has been sworn partly on personal knowledge and partly on record. Averments contained in para 4 shows that application 6-C was rejected by Presiding Officer on 22.10.2013. Order was not taken submissively by Contemnor and he made certain comments not only against the order but also told Officer concerned that Contemnor would advise his client to proceed in superior Court. In para 4, if we read it very carefully, we find that date of order has been mentioned as 22.10.2013 but with regard to comments made by Contemnor before Presiding Officer, it is not said that the same were made on 22.10.2013 and at what time. In fact with regard to comments no date has been mentioned. Reply in this regard is vague. Further with regard to comments made by Contemnor it is said that he used submissive language at the moment of rejection but fact remains that after delivery of order, Contemnor could not restrain himself but made obvious and open comments in respect to order before Court concerned and it smacks of a veiled threat. 16. Then we come to order sheet dated 23.10.2013, to which Contemnor and his counsel have heavily relied and endeavoured to show that it has been manipulated subsequently by insertion of certain words so as to make out a case of criminal contempt against Contemnor. Here the question is, whether, without insertion of those words, it cannot be said that Contemnor has committed any contempt. We reproduce order dated 23.10.2013 as under: "File has been placed. Argument was being recorded. During course of argument, counsel Shoeb Akhtar, Advocate, appeared in Court and started shouting loudly regarding an order dated 22.10.2013 passed in Original Suit No. 72/2013 Danish Shakeel Versus Tarannum and alleged me with a charge of taking bribe. We reproduce order dated 23.10.2013 as under: "File has been placed. Argument was being recorded. During course of argument, counsel Shoeb Akhtar, Advocate, appeared in Court and started shouting loudly regarding an order dated 22.10.2013 passed in Original Suit No. 72/2013 Danish Shakeel Versus Tarannum and alleged me with a charge of taking bribe. Therefore, due to his uncourteous conduct, the court work has interrupted. Threats of getting me suspended and terminated from service have been given by him. The court work has obstructed. Therefore, for remaining argument, let case be placed on 27-11-13." [English Translation by Court] 17. The words, which we have shown in bold letters are said to have been inserted subsequently. It has been done to make out a case of criminal contempt is the basic contention advanced in defence on behalf of Contemnor. 18. Here we may notice that in the order sheet there are two signatures of parties who had appeared in Original Suit No. 652 of 2007, noting date which is the normal practice in subordinate Courts which show that the order sheet in the manner as aforesaid was prepared on 23.10.2013. The parties who appeared in the suit made endorsement in the order sheet noting the date. Addition of certain words in the order has been admitted by Presiding Officer with the clarification that she is a junior officer and such an incident had occurred in her Court for the first time. When proceedings were disturbed by Contemnor, Presiding Officer started writing order sheet adjourning examination of witnesses. During that time, Contemnor continued to shout and repeated same words, hence same words were inserted in the order sheet between the lines. 19. We have to examine first, whether any such incident actually took place on 23.10.2013 which is noticed by Referring Court in the order sheet dated 23.10.2013. The very language of order sheet makes it very clear that during examination of witnesses proceedings of Court were interfered by Contemnor by shouting in the Court. Court's proceedings were disturbed hence examination of witnesses was deferred and adjourned to 27.11.2013. Even if we exclude the words which, as alleged by counsel for the Contemnor, have been inserted by Referring Court subsequently, the remaining part of the order sheet still makes it clear that Contemnor shouted in Referring Court, levelled allegations and obstructed Court's proceedings. Court's proceedings were disturbed hence examination of witnesses was deferred and adjourned to 27.11.2013. Even if we exclude the words which, as alleged by counsel for the Contemnor, have been inserted by Referring Court subsequently, the remaining part of the order sheet still makes it clear that Contemnor shouted in Referring Court, levelled allegations and obstructed Court's proceedings. The order sheet which remains after excluding the words which alleges to have been subsequently inserted, we find that remaining order still shows a clear act of criminal contempt on the part of Contemnor as it reads as under: "File has been placed. Argument was being recorded. During course of argument, counsel Shoeb Akhtar, Advocate, appeared in Court and started shouting loudly regarding an order dated 22.10.2013 passed in Original Suit No. 72/2013 Danish Shakeel Versus Tarannum and levelled allegation on me. Therefore, due to his uncourteous conduct, the court work has interrupted. Therefore, for remaining argument, let case be placed on 27-11-13." [English Translation by Court] (The alleged subsequently added words have been excluded only for the purpose of examination of matter) 20. The order sheet was clearly written on 23.10.2013 itself since on the margin thereof we find signatures of the parties to the suit noting the date which is the normal practise in subordinate Courts. Moreover, Referring Court also sent a letter dated 23.10.2013 to District Judge, Gorakhpur which was actually received in the office of District Judge on 24.10.2013. It is also part of record and shows receipt in the office of District Judge. Therein also she has specifically made complaint that quo order dated 22.10.2013, Contemnor appeared in the Court on 23.10.2013 and disturbed Court proceedings by shouting and making allegations against Presiding Officer. The letter dated 23.10.2013 reads as under: "Sir, Respectfully it is submitted that on 23.10.13, between 12.30-1 O' clock, the argument was being recorded in Original Suit No. 652/2007, Chhedi Versus Jawahar. Meanwhile, counsel Shri Mohamma Shoeb Siddiqui appeared in the Court and regarding an order, which was passed in Original Suit No. 72/2013, Danish Akil Versus Tarranum on 22.10.13, in which application filed by him was rejected, he started shouting loudly in the Court and alleged me for taking bribe. The proceeding of the Court got interrupted due to his uncourteous behaviour. He threatened to get me suspended and dismissed from service and thus interrupted the proceedings of the Court. The proceeding of the Court got interrupted due to his uncourteous behaviour. He threatened to get me suspended and dismissed from service and thus interrupted the proceedings of the Court. It is therefore requested that your goodself may kindly take the cognizance of aforementioned facts and matter." (English translation by Court) 21. Reference made to this Court on 23.10.2013 is subsequent but chain of events shows that Presiding Officer of Court below, immediately after being obstructed by Contemnor on 23.10.2013, took notice of incident in the order sheet of case during proceedings whereof incident took place and at the earliest reported matter to District Judge also. Contemnor had tried to dispute his presence in Court on 23.10.2013 but as we have noticed above, he admits in his very first affidavit dated 05.05.2014 filed before this Court by stating in para 4 that he made some comments in respect to order dated 22.10.2013 passed in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2013 before Presiding Officer of Court. Contemnor, therefore, as a matter of fact has admitted of making certain comments before Presiding Officer of Court below but what he has tried is to first dispute date of such statement and secondly that in his own way statement was in submissive language. 22. After framing of charge, he has filed reply vide affidavit dated 10.08.2015 and therein he has filed three affidavits of advocates Sri Naimul Hasan Siddiqui, Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma and Sri Rajneesh Kumar Shukla. It is said that Sri Naimul Hasan Siddiqui was counsel of plaintiff in Original Suit No. 652 of 2007 in which witnesses were being examined on 23.10.2013. 23. We have examined affidavit of Sri Naimul Hasain Siddiqui very carefully. This affidavit has been sworn before notary at Gorakhpur on 04.11.2014. Non judicial stamp paper of Rs. 10/- wherein part of the affidavit has been transcribed, shows that said stamp paper was purchased on 04.04.2014 in the name of Sri Naimul Hasan Siddiqui. We find it difficult to understand as to what was the occasion to purchase said stamp paper on 04.04.2014 so as to be used for the purpose of affidavit sworn on 04.09.2014 i.e. after five months thereof. Moreover, we also do not find any occasion to procure such an affidavit on 04.11.2014 when Contemnor had already filed his reply affidavit dated 05.05.2014. Moreover, we also do not find any occasion to procure such an affidavit on 04.11.2014 when Contemnor had already filed his reply affidavit dated 05.05.2014. If the affidavit was available with Contemnor on 04.09.2014 why it was not placed before Court thereafter before framing of charge is also not understandable. 24. Second affidavit of Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma has been sworn on 26.02.2015. Here ten rupees non judicial stamp paper was purchased in the name of Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma on 25.02.2015 and on the same date affidavit has been prepared. Again we also do not understand as to what was the occasion to have this affidavit prepared on 26.02.2015 when Contemnor had already filed his second affidavit sworn on 24.02.2015 before this Court on 25.02.2015 i.e. just a day earlier. 25. Third affidavit of Sri Rajneesh Kumar Shukla has been sworn on 08.07.2015 on a stamp paper purchased on the same date. Again on 08.07.2015 what was the occasion to have this affidavit prepared, has not been explained. 26. We further find that these two advocates Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma and Sri Rajneesh Kumar Shukla, though have stated in para 2 that case of their client was listed in Court No. 18 on 23.10.2013 wherein they have gone to Court but details of such case of both advocates have not been given in their affidavits. Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma has said that he remained in Court from 12: 00 to 1: 30 p.m., while Sri Rajneesh Kumar Shukla has said that he was in Court No. 18 from 12: 30 p.m. to 1: 15 p.m. Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma has said that during the period of 12: 00 to 1: 30 p.m. Presiding Officer was hearing arguments in his case and Reader was noting examination of witnesses and Sri Rajneesh Kumar Shukla has said that examination of witnesses was going on in Case No. 652 of 2007 while Presiding Officer was hearing arguments in some other case. Then in paras 3 and 4, language of both the affidavits is identical except that in the affidavit of Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma entire contents are in para 3, 4 and 5 while the same contents have been stated in affidavit of Sri Rajneesh Kumar Shukla in paras 3 and 4. None of these deponents have been produced before Court for examination by learned counsel nominated by this Court for assistance. None of these deponents have been produced before Court for examination by learned counsel nominated by this Court for assistance. With respect to aforesaid three affidavits which have been sworn on different dates, as noticed above, i.e. 04.09.2014, 26.02.2015 and 08.07.2015, the averments have been made by Contemnor in paras 6 and 7 of his affidavit dated 10.08.2015 and these paras 6 and 7 have been sworn partly on the basis of personal knowledge and partly on the basis of record, which read as under: "6. That it is pertinent to submitted here the deponent had also searched out the name of counsel Sri Naimul Hasan Siddiquie who had appeared as counsel for plaintiff on 23.10.2013 in original suit No. 652/207 Chhedi Versus Jawahir. The deponent has also searched the names of two other counsels namely Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma Advocate and Sri Rajnish Kumar Shukla Advocate, whose cases were also dated fixed on 23.10.2013, before aforesaid Judicial Officer/Smt. Mamta Singh and were also present, when the cross examination in original suit No. 652/2007 was going on the deponent has shown the referral letters dated 23.10.2013 of Judicial Officer and order sheet, sent before the Hon'ble Court and order sheet dated 23.10.2013 as referred in preceding paras, on whose basis, the contempt proceeding has been initiated against the deponent. 7. That after reading the contempt of aforesaid letters and order sheet, the Advocates aforesaid namely Naimul Hasan Siddiqui, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Rajnish Kumar Shukla had agreed to disclose the true facts through affidavits. They have also clearly disclosed that deponent had not concocted any misbehave, with Smt. Mamta Singh, nor he appeared on 23.10.2013 before her Court, and no such incident was happened in Court on 23.10.2013, with Judicial Officer/Smt. Mamta Singh while cross examination in original suit No. 652/2007.The copies of original affidavit filed by Sri Naimul Hasan Siddique, Advocate, as Annexure-1 by Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma Advocate as Annexure-2 and by Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Advocate is being filed as Annexure-3 to this reply, as evidence to prove his innocence. 27. 27. Nothing has been explained as to why these affidavits were obtained from different counsel on different dates and what was the occasion for that, particularly when charge was framed by Court on 07.05.2015, two affidavits were already obtained by Contemnor on 04.09.2014 and 25.02.2015 but before framing of charge, despite possessing these affidavits, Contemnor chose not to bring the same on record. This conduct raises serious doubt about story set up by him. 28. We are also at a loss to find any explanation on the part of Sri Naimul Hasan Siddiqui, one of advocate who has given affidavit in support of defence of Contemnor, who claims to be counsel of plaintiff in Original Suit No. 652 of 2007 as to in what circumstances order sheet dated 23.10.2013 was written mentioning disturbance caused by Contemnor. The said order sheet was also endorsed by parties in aforesaid suit, noting down adjourned date for examination of witnesses. On this aspect nothing has been said by Sri Naimul Hasain Siddiqui, whose affidavit has been relied by Contemnor in support of his defence. It appears to us that on account of advocates brotherhood, aforesaid three affidavits have been procured by Contemnor but they do not disclose correct facts. We are also fortified in taking this view in the light of very admission of Contemnor that he made adverse comments in respect to order dated 22.10.2013 passed by Referring Court in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2013 in para 4 of his affidavit dated 05.05.2014. 29. In view of above discussion we have no manner of doubt that the allegations levelled against Contemnor in the Reference made by Referring Court are correct and defence taken by Contemnor is false. In absence of any credible evidence it has to be rejected. 30. Then proceeding further to find out whether Contemnor is guilty of committing "criminal contempt" as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act, 1971, we find that conduct shown by him on 23.10.2013 in Referring Court, whether read without words which are said to have been inserted by Presiding Officer subsequently or with those words, in either case, action of Contemnor shown in the Court as also his conduct is nothing but a clear case of "criminal contempt" as defined under Section 2(c) of Act, 1971. He shouted in Court when judicial proceedings were going on in another matter, made allegations and obstructed Court's proceedings in presence of litigants and other advocates. Shouting in the Court, levelling allegations against a Presiding Officer and obstruction of Court's proceedings is nothing but an act of scandalizing Court and lowering down its authority. 31. The term "criminal contempt" has been defined under Section 2(c) of Act, 1971 as under: "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 proceedings; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;" (emphasis added) 32. As already said, in the present case, Contemnor made allegations against Presiding Officer, shouted during judicial proceedings and obstructed Court's functioning. These acts constitute a 'criminal contempt'. 33. In Rachapudi Subba Rao Vs. Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 755 , the contemnor Rachapudi Subba Rao served a notice upon Additional Subordinate Judge making various allegations in respect of a judgment given by him. The allegations of bad faith, malice, partiality etc. were made. The proceedings of contempt under Section 12 read with 10 and 15 of Act, 1971 were initiated. The Court held that tone, temper and contents of notice impute malice, partiality and dishonesty to the Subordinate Judge in judicial adjudication, constitute a deliberate attempt to scandalise the judge, to terribly embarrass him, and, to lower the authority of his office and the Court. 34. In Shamsher Singh Bedi Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 1996 (7) SCC 99 , the contemnor Shamsher Singh Bedi, an advocate faced criminal contempt proceedings. One Gurdial Singh was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. A bail application was filed before the Magistrate, which was rejected. Gurdial Singh served a notice upon the Magistrate, which was drafted by advocate Shamsher Singh Bedi. The notice contains certain remarks, scandalous in nature. The Court held that notice having been drafted by advocate, he cannot escape responsibility in his professional capacity. A bail application was filed before the Magistrate, which was rejected. Gurdial Singh served a notice upon the Magistrate, which was drafted by advocate Shamsher Singh Bedi. The notice contains certain remarks, scandalous in nature. The Court held that notice having been drafted by advocate, he cannot escape responsibility in his professional capacity. The allegation being scandalous in nature, they tend to pervert the course of justice and likely to interfere wit the proper administration of justice, hence, amount to criminal contempt. The Court also observed that it is not necessary to show that there has been actual interference with administration of justice by such remarks and, it is enough, if it is likely or tends in any way to interfere with the proper administration of law. 35. Insulting a Judge engaged in judicial work or imputing corrupt practices to him in discharge of his official duties is a very grave contempt. It is nothing but scandalising the Court. A Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Dr. A. Gopal Menon, 1996(3) ALD 675 said: "The test for determining whether this kind of contempt has been committed is to find out whether the act in question has a tendency to pollute the fountain of justice and whether it has a tendency to destroy the confidence of common man in the administration of justice." 36. If an impression is made in the minds of public that Judges of the Court act on extraneous considerations in deciding cases, confidence of the litigants, in particular, and, public in general, in the administration of justice is bound to shake. No greater mischief than that can possibly be imagined. 37. The allegation of mala fide, bad intention against a Judge in respect to a judicial order clearly amounts to scandalizing the Court and is a "criminal contempt". Vilificatory criticism of a Judge functioning in the court is nothing but a clear criminal contempt since it not only affects the 'administration of justice' but also lowers the authority and dignity of Court. It creates a distress in public mind as to the capacity of Judge to meet out even-handed justice. Reckless and scurrilous attack made against a Judge, imputing oblique motives in discharge of his judicial functions and suggesting unholy acquaintance and constant contacts with one of the litigant to favour him/them for granting relief amounts to criminal contempt. 38. It creates a distress in public mind as to the capacity of Judge to meet out even-handed justice. Reckless and scurrilous attack made against a Judge, imputing oblique motives in discharge of his judicial functions and suggesting unholy acquaintance and constant contacts with one of the litigant to favour him/them for granting relief amounts to criminal contempt. 38. In re: S. Mulgaokar 1978 (3) SCC 339 , the Court said that judiciary cannot be immune from criticism, but, when that criticism is based on obvious distortion or gross mis-statement and made in a manner which seems designed to lower respect for judiciary and destroy public confidence, it cannot be ignored. When there appears some scheme and a design to bring about results which must damage confidence in judicial system and demoralize Judges by making malicious attacks, anyone interested in maintaining high standards of fearless, impartial, and unbending justice will feel perturbed. 39. In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, AIR 1995 SC 2348 , the Court observed that normally, no Judge takes action for in facie curiae contempt against lawyer unless he is impelled to do so. It is not the heat generated in the arguments but the language used, the tone and the manner in which it is expressed and intention behind using it which determine whether it was calculated to insult, show disrespect, to overbear and overawe the court and to threaten and obstruct the course of justice. It was also observed that making allegations or aspersions on the integrity of Judge is not to be misunderstood as a outspoken fearless attitude of an advocate. Brazenness is not outspokenness and arrogance is not fearlessness. Use of intemperate language is not assertion of right nor is a threat an argument. Humility is not servility and courtesy and politeness are not lack of dignity. Rule of law is the foundation of the democratic society. If judiciary is to perform its duties and its functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. The foundation of judiciary is trust and confidence of people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. If judiciary is to perform its duties and its functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. The foundation of judiciary is trust and confidence of people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for authority of court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded. 40. Of late, we find a deep increase in tendency of advocates in making allegations against Presiding Officers of the Courts and thereafter also try to justify their allegations by filing transfer applications with such allegations. In the context of allegations of bias etc. against Presiding Officers made in transfer applications filed under Section 24 C.P.C. Or 407 Cr.P.C., the Court, time and again has held that apprehension of bias must be shown bona fide and reasonably. It should be substantiated by material placed before the Court. Reminding the duties of advocate, in Smt. Sudha Sharma Vs. Ram Naresh Jaiswal, AIR 1990 MP 320 , the Court said that a foremost duty casts upon the counsel concerned while drafting and making allegations against the Judge concerned, is to take utmost care and caution in making wild allegations against the Presiding Judge. The counsel should realise that he is officer of the Court. Introducing fanciful and imaginary allegations for harbouring apprehension that fair and impartial justice would not be done should be avoided. Mere suspicion by party is not sufficient. There must be reasonable apprehension based on material. 41. The justice delivery system knows no caste, religion, creed, colour etc. It is a system following principle of black and white, i.e., truth and false. Whatever is unfair, that is identified and given its due treatment and whatever is good is retained. Whoever suffers injustice is attempted to be given justice and that is called dispensation of justice. The prevailing system of dispensation of justice in Country, presently, has different tiers. At the ground level, the Courts are commonly known as "Subordinate Judiciary" and they form basis of administration of justice. Sometimes it is said that subordinate judiciary forms very backbone of administration of justice. The prevailing system of dispensation of justice in Country, presently, has different tiers. At the ground level, the Courts are commonly known as "Subordinate Judiciary" and they form basis of administration of justice. Sometimes it is said that subordinate judiciary forms very backbone of administration of justice. Though there are various other kinds of adjudicatory forums, like, Nyaya Panchayats, Village Courts and then various kinds of Tribunals etc. but firstly they are not considered to be regular Courts for adjudication of disputes, and, secondly the kind and degree of faith, people have in regular established Courts, is yet to be developed in other forums. In common parlance, the regular Courts, known for appropriate adjudication of disputes basically constitute subordinate judiciary, namely, the District Court; the High Courts and the Apex Court. 42. The hierarchy gives appellate and supervisory powers in various ways. The administrative control of subordinate judiciary has been conferred upon High Court, which is the highest Court at provincial level and is under constitutional obligation to see effective functioning of subordinate Courts by virtue of power conferred by Article 235 read with 227 of the Constitution. No similar power like Article 235 , in respect to High Court is exercisable by Apex Court, though it is the highest Court of land. Its judgments are binding on all. Every order and judgment of any Court or Tribunal etc., in the Country, is subject to judicial review by Apex Court. This is the power on judicial side. Thus scheme under the Constitution imposes heavy duty and responsibility upon High Court to ensure due or proper honour of subordinate Court and Judge and to save them from such scurrilous attack. 43. In Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re: (1998) 7 SCC 248 , the Court said that superior Courts, i.e. High Court as also the Apex Court is bound to protect the Judges of subordinate Courts from being subjected to scurrilous and indecent attacks, which scandalise or have the tendency to scandalise, or lower or have the tendency to lower the authority of any court as also all such actions which interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. No affront to the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. No affront to the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. The protection is necessary for the courts to enable them to discharge their judicial functions without fear. 44. If there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize a judicial Officer of subordinate Court, it is bound to shake confidence of litigating public in the system and has to be tackled strictly. The damage is caused not only to the reputation of the concerned Judge, but, also to the fair name of judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language, and, at times, blatant condemnatory attacks, like the present one, are often designedly employed with a view to tame a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. The foundation of our system is based on the independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial Officers. If their confidence, impartiality and reputation is shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of judiciary. Any person, if allowed to make disparaging and derogatory remarks against a Judicial Officer, with impunity, is bound to result in breaking down the majesty of justice. 45. We cannot ignore the fact that much cherished judicial independence needs protection not only from over zealous executive or power hungry legislature but also from those who constitute, and, are integral part of the system. Here is a case where an Advocate has levelled allegations and disrupted Court proceedings. The Advocate forgetting the higher status conferred upon him, making him an Officer of the Court, has chosen to malign Judicial Officer of the Subordinate Court. 46. An Advocate's duty is as important as that of a Judge. He has a large responsibility towards society. He is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect. In all professional functions, an Advocate should be straight and transparent. His conduct should also bear the same character. He should conform to the requirements of law. He plays a vital role in preservation of society and justice system. He is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law. He must ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. He, who practices law, is not merely a lawyer, but acts as moral agent. This character, he cannot shake off, by any other character on any professional character. He is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law. He must ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. He, who practices law, is not merely a lawyer, but acts as moral agent. This character, he cannot shake off, by any other character on any professional character. He derives from the belief that he shares sentiment of all mankind. This influence of his morality is one of his possession, which, like all his possession, he is bound to use for moral ends. Members of the Bar, like Judges, are the officers of the Court. Advocacy is a respectable noble profession on the principles. An Advocate owes duty not only to his client, but to the Court, to the society and, not the least, to his profession. 47. We do not intend to lay down any code of conduct for the class of the peoples known as "Advocates", but certainly we have no hesitation in observing that no Advocate has any business to condemn a Judge for passing an unfavaourable order. If there is something lacking on the part of a Judicial Officer touching his integrity, Advocates, being Officers of the Court, may not remain a silent spectator, but should come forward, raising their voice in appropriate manner before the proper authority, but there cannot be a licence to any member of Bar to raise his finger over the competence and integrity etc. of the Judicial Officer, casually or negligently, or on other irrelevant grounds. Here the competence and capacity of the concerned Judicial Officer has been attempted to be maligned commenting upon his integrity and honesty. It deserves to be condemned in the strongest words. No one can justify it in any manner. Thinking of intrusion of such thought itself sounds alert. It is a siren of something which is not only very serious, but imminent. It is a concept or an idea which should not have cropped up in anybody's mind, connected with the system of justice, and if has cropped up, deserves to be nipped at earliest, else, it may spreads its tentacles to cover others and that would be a dooms day for the very institution. 48. This Court also made similar observations in Smt. Munni Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013(2) AWC 1546 and in para 10, said: "10. 48. This Court also made similar observations in Smt. Munni Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013(2) AWC 1546 and in para 10, said: "10. Be that as it may, so far as the present case is concerned, suffice is to mention that the Constitution makers have imposed constitutional obligation upon the High Court to exercise control over subordinate judiciary. This control is both ways. No aberration shall be allowed to enter the Subordinate Judiciary so that its purity is maintained. Simultaneously Subordinate Judiciary can not be allowed to be attacked or threatened to work under outside pressure of anyone, whether individual or a group, so as to form a threat to objective and independent functioning of Subordinate Judiciary." 49. Criticism of an order of a Court cannot be equated with making scurrilous attack on the conduct and integrity of the Judicial Officer/Presiding Officer of the Court. In the present case, an open allegation of bribe has been levelled against concerned Judicial Officer. 50. Wild imaginary allegations against conduct of Judicial Officer without having any material to substantiate the same cannot be tolerated, inasmuch as, it not only brings into disrepute the entire justice system but is likely to cause serious erosion in the confidence of public in case such tendency is not snuffed at the earliest. The Judicial Officer/Judges had no platform to stand and clarify the circumstances in which order has been passed by them. They have no platform to defend themselves. The strength of judiciary comes from the strong public opinion which it has in the system. If unsubstantiated flimsy imaginary fanciful allegations are made by a party, who did not find an order in its favour, it will demolish the very foundation of the system of justice. Every order passed by Court will be in favour of one of the party and against another. The losing party cannot be allowed to challenge the very integrity of Judicial Officer in passing an order and that too without any material to support such a allegation. Every order passed by Court will be in favour of one of the party and against another. The losing party cannot be allowed to challenge the very integrity of Judicial Officer in passing an order and that too without any material to support such a allegation. If we allow such a trend to remain unnoticed, or condone the same without any appropriate action, it will not only encourage such tendency amongst other and but also resultant situation may result in a serious blow to the system of administration of justice, which is one of the founding pillar of constitutional scheme and has to be protected by all legal and reasonable means. 51. We may put on record that we called upon the Contemnor to place on record any material and evidence to substantiate his allegations of bribe etc. levelled against the Judicial Officer concerned and we told him that in case the same can be proved, this Court would take all steps permissible in law to weed out such a Judicial Officer from the cadre of Judicial Officer of subordinate Courts but he failed and did not make any attempt to do so. Therefore, attempt of the contemnor to shield himself with reference to Sections 3 to 7 of Act, 1971 is misconceived. Those provisions have no applicability in this case. 52. In view of above discussions, we are clearly of the view that Contemnor is guilty of committing criminal contempt, as defined under Section2(c) of Act, 1971, of subordinate Court, and charge levelled against him stands proved. 53. Now coming to question of sentence and considering fact which has been placed on record by Contemnor that for the last almost three decades he is practising in Civil Court, Gorakhpur and has never been alleged to be guilty of any such conduct, we find that ends of justice would meet if Contemnor is sentenced simple imprisonment of one day i.e. till rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. We order accordingly. 54. In case of non payment of fine Contemnor shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. Contemnor is also restrained from entering premises of District Judgeship, Gorakhpur for a period of two months. This period shall commence with effect from 01.01.2016. 55. 2,000/-. We order accordingly. 54. In case of non payment of fine Contemnor shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. Contemnor is also restrained from entering premises of District Judgeship, Gorakhpur for a period of two months. This period shall commence with effect from 01.01.2016. 55. The District Judge, Gorakhpur is also directed to keep a constant watch over conduct of Contemnor for a period of two years; and if he finds anything otherwise, constituting contempts of subordinate Court, shall report the matter to this Court forthwith. 56. The contempt application is allowed in the manner as aforesaid. 57. Registry shall certify this judgement to District Judge, Gorakhpur and to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur forthwith for information and compliance.