JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Perusal of order dated 22.09.2015, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO, in Special Session Trial No. 160 of 2015, reveals that examination-in-chief of PW1 prosecutrix was recorded on 22.09.2015; learned counsel, appearing for the defence, was present in the Court at the time of examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix; when opportunity was accorded to the learned counsel for the defence to cross examine the prosecutrix, he refused to cross examine the prosecutrix and left the Court saying he would be sending adjournment application; learned Presiding Officer felt the pain the way learned defence counsel has left the Court room in the midway saying he will be sending the adjournment application; therefore, learned Presiding Officer has recorded the conduct of the defence counsel in the ordersheet; thereafter, adjournment application was sent by the learned defence counsel, which was rejected by the learned Trial Judge with the request that learned defence counsel to resume the cross examination at 3:50 p.m.; however, learned defence counsel has failed to cross examine the prosecutrix. It is also recorded in the order of the learned Trial Judge that prosecutrix has stated in her statement that her parents have taken money from the accused to get him acquitted, therefore, this seems to be reason for not cross examining the prosecutrix. Matter was taken by the learned Trial Judge after lunch. Learned Trial Judge again requested the learned defence counsel to resume the cross examination, however, learned defence counsel refused to cross examine. Ultimately, cross examination was closed. 2. Now, present petition has been preferred for recalling the order whereby cross examination was closed and to recall the witness for cross examination. 3. From the perusal of the ordersheet as narrated hereinbefore, prima facie, I am of the opinion that conduct of the defence counsel amounts to mis-conduct and it goes to demonstrate that he intended to lower the authority of the Court and he tried to interfere in the due course of judicial proceedings by walking out from the Court when matter was being heard by the learned Trial Judge. Therefore, prima facie, defence counsel seems to be guilty of criminal contempt. 4. On being asked, Mr. V.D. Bisen, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that name of the defence counsel is Shri Praveen Kothari, who is practicing Advocate at District Court, Rudrapur. 5. Let notice be issued to Mr. Therefore, prima facie, defence counsel seems to be guilty of criminal contempt. 4. On being asked, Mr. V.D. Bisen, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that name of the defence counsel is Shri Praveen Kothari, who is practicing Advocate at District Court, Rudrapur. 5. Let notice be issued to Mr. Praveen Kothari, Advocate asking him to remain present in person before this Court on 26th October, 2015 to show cause as to why recommendation should not be sent to the Bar Council of India for initiating appropriate disciplinary action against him and further to show cause as to why proceedings for criminal contempt should not be drawn against him and he should not be held guilty for the criminal contempt. 6. List on 26th October, 2015.