ORDER : K.S. MUDAGAL, J. The accused is tried in this case on the charge of commission of criminal contempt of Court. The charge against the accused is as follows: “Taking suo motu cognizance of the letter dated 02.08.2022 and the letter dated 21.10.2022 along with enclosures forwarded by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mysuru, notice of contempt was issued by this Court on 03.01.2023. On considering the contentions and the submissions advanced by respondent/accused in our opinion, the conduct of the respondent/accused by filing applications using derogative words, making baseless allegations against the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Mysuru and interfering with the Court proceedings amounts to criminal contempt as contemplated under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.” 2. Exs.C13 and C14/the letters dated 01/02.08.2022 addressed by CW.1/the then Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Mysuru are the one referred to in the charge. In a nutshell under those letters CW.1 reported that the accused with an intention to interfere with CW.1 and his Predecessors in office in adjudicating I.I.D.No.98/2009 which was renumbered as I.I.D.No.22/2016 went on making contemptuous allegations against them, the Court Staff etc. Thereby he has committed contempt of Court. Those letters and the evidence will be discussed in detail later at appropriate stage. 3. To find out whether such acts amount to criminal contempt, it is necessary to refer to Sections 2(c) and 12 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘the Act’ for short). Section 2(c) of the Act reads as follows: “2(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written , or by signs, or by visible representation , 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 12. Punishment for contempt of court.—(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court. Explanation.—An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.” 4. Section 10 of the Act empowers the High Court to punish a person who commits contempt of subordinate Court. There cannot be any dispute that Labour Court in question is the subordinate Court to this High Court. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 97 of the judgment in Vijay Kurle in Re and others , (2021) 13 SCC 616 in the similar circumstances held as follows: “97. ……… No litigant has a right to attribute motives to a Judge. No litigant has a right to question the integrity of a Judge . No litigant has a right to even question the ability of a Judge. When the ability, integrity and dignity of the Judges are questioned, this is an attack on the institution . It is attack on the majesty of law and lowers the impression of the Courts in the public eye. (Emphasis supplied) 6. In paragraphs 54, 55 and 56 of the said judgment, it was held that the right of freedom of speech of a person/litigant is made subject to laws of contempt which would not only include the Act, but also powers of the Court to punish for contempt. It was further held that if the criticism is made in a concerted manner to lower the majesty of the institution of the Courts and with a view to tarnish the image not only of the Judges, but also of the Courts, then if such attempts are not checked, the result would be disastrous. It was further held that if the allegations leveled go beyond the ambit of criticism and scandalize the Court , then there can be no manner of doubt that such utterances or written words would amount to contempt of Court. 7. It was further held that if the allegations leveled go beyond the ambit of criticism and scandalize the Court , then there can be no manner of doubt that such utterances or written words would amount to contempt of Court. 7. In para 58 of the judgment it was held that no party has the right to attribute motive to a Judge or to question the bonafide of the Judge or to raise questions with regard to competence of the Judge. 8. In para 101 of the said judgment, it was held that though any citizen can comment or criticize the judgment of the Court, but to do so he must have some standing or knowledge of such subject. 9. In the light of the above legal position, now this Court has to examine whether the acts of the accused referred to in the charge and the evidence adduced on that is sufficient to conclude that the accused has committed the contempt of Court. 10. The letters dated 01/02.08.2022 referred to in the charge are marked at Exs.C13 and C14. They are the letters addressed by CW.1/the then Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Mysore to the Registrar General of this Court. The accused does not dispute that he was employed in ‘Power Cell Battery India’ and the said employer had terminated him from service. It is also not disputed that challenging such termination a dispute was raised in I.I.D.No.98/2009 by the accused which was subsequently renumbered as I.I.D.No.22/2016. On the application of the accused for payment of wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘I.D.Act’ for short), the Labour Court had awarded interim subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of his last drawn wages. The said order was modified by the High Court in an appeal reducing the same to 50%. It is also not disputed that the accused was conducting the said case as party-in-person. 11. Under Ex.C13, CW.1 reported that on 05.08.2013 when the case was listed for evidence on issue No.1 regarding fairness of domestic inquiry, the accused submitted an application making allegations against CW.2/Predecessor of CW.1 in office, employing contemptuous language which led to CW.2 addressing a letter to initiate contempt of Court against the accused and seeking transfer of the case to some other Court. He further reported that such situation led to the case being adjourned till 16.04.2022 without any progress and the accused enjoying the benefit of interim wages awarded to him. It is further reported that as the case was long pending on requesting both parties to expedite the matter, CW.1 disposed of the pending interim applications and listed the matter on 16.07.2022 for hearing. Still the accused filed application seeking review of all the interim orders passed earlier and used the foul language against the Presiding Officers questioning their integrity. Further he mis-conducted in the Court employing contemptuous language not only against the Presiding Officer but also against the Court staff, the Advocates and the Clients. He wrote letters making serious contemptuous allegations against them. It was reported that the accused has resorted to such conduct with ulterior and sole object of unduly influencing the proceedings of the Court which amounts to contempt of Court. Thus under Ex.C13, CW.1 requested for initiation of contempt proceedings against the accused. 12. Ex.C2 is again the letter addressed by CW.2 to the Registrar General of this Court reiterating the statements in Ex.C1 and further stating that since the accused has questioned the integrity of the Officer, the case be transferred to some other Court. 13. Ex.C21 is the letter referred to by CW.1 in Ex.C13 and C14. The accused admits for having submitted such application before CW.1 in the pending proceedings. Ex.C21 is captioned as “ APPLICATION PRAYING FOR REVISION OF THE ORDERS PASSED IN THIS CASE ON 30.05.2022 AND 31.05.2022 AND TO PASS JUDICIOUS REVISION ORDERS THEREON” . In para 1 of the said application accused claims that on 30.05.2022 after the completion of the proceedings the Judge directed to take signature of the accused to the order sheet, so he signed on the order sheet with the following remarks: “I have already given a complaint against previous Presiding Officer to the High Court of Karnataka and also to Government of Karnataka and as per the contents of this complaint, if the present case is continued, I don’t have any objection.” 14. Firstly the order sheet is meant for the Judge recording the proceedings. The party has no right or authority to make such remarks in the Court records that too in the order sheet. Firstly the order sheet is meant for the Judge recording the proceedings. The party has no right or authority to make such remarks in the Court records that too in the order sheet. Secondly, by such remark he has subtly intimidated CW.1 to conduct the proceedings to his tune/as demanded in his complaint written against the previous Presiding Officer and warning that otherwise CW.1 also faces such complaint. That amounts to interference in judicial process. In para 3 of Ex.C21 the accused states that when he applied and secured the certified copy of the order sheet dated 30.05.2022 he found that remarks made by him in that were absent and the order sheet was substituted to nullify his remarks and he demanded to replace such allegedly substituted order sheet by the original one. Thereby he imputes to the Judge the act of tampering of the order sheet. 15. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of Ex.C21 the accused takes exception to CW.1 disposing of his applications and memos on 31.05.2022. If the accused found any legal infirmity in those orders, he had to question them before the Appellate Authority instead of blaming CW.1 to cause embarrassment to him. In para 6 of Ex.C21, accused alleged that during evidence on issue No.1, CW.1 compelled him to answer the questions put by the Advocate for the opposite party. His allegations in the middle of the said paragraph are as follows: “By recording the same and on the domestic inquiry report if this case is disposed means that Judge is cheating petitioner which fact prima facie makes it clear.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. In para No.6 referred to above, the accused has said that he has made complaints against the Judge to the High Court and Government of Karnataka but,High Court of Karnataka has not conducted any inquiry and remained neutral. Thereby he makes allegations against the High Court also. In para 7, he says that the Judge has rejected his I.A.No.15 by an illegal order, which was not permissible to be raised before the same Judge. In paragraphs 8 and 9, he alleges that on 22.01.2013 he had filed the documents running into 1471 pages with proper index but still the earlier Presiding Officer Sri.M.V.Ashwathnarayana rejected his application on 12.04.2013 with a false statement that the documents are not properly indexed which was unfair. In paragraphs 8 and 9, he alleges that on 22.01.2013 he had filed the documents running into 1471 pages with proper index but still the earlier Presiding Officer Sri.M.V.Ashwathnarayana rejected his application on 12.04.2013 with a false statement that the documents are not properly indexed which was unfair. Therefore, he claims that on 31.05.2022, CW.1 should have conducted an inquiry against the Judge Sri M.V.Ashwathnarayana instead of dismissing his application. It is material to note that he makes such allegations against the Judge Sri M.V.Ashwathnarayana after 10 years and behind his back. Finally in Ex.C21 his prayer column reads as follows: “The Hon’ble Court should consider the above matter seriously and to reconsider the order. Otherwise, since the petitioner has already given complaint to Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka on 07.10.2014 and another complaint lodged before High Court of Karnataka on 12.07.2013 and till suitable direction is given in this regard by them, the case status quo should be maintained. This request is made to the Hon’ble Court with humble submission. The application has been prepared upon the consultation of a respectable person and submitted to the Court.” (Emphasis supplied) The above paragraph clearly shows the intimidation of the accused to CW.1 to reconsider his order otherwise to face the consequences of the complaints allegedly filed by the accused to this Court and the Additional Chief Secretary. Further he calls upon CW.1 a Judge to suo motu stall the proceedings which is nothing but clear interference in the course of justice attracting the definition of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Act. 17. Ex.C22 is the written arguments filed by the accused before CW.1 on 27.06.2022 in I.I.D.No.22/2016. In page Nos.27 and 28 (shown at the foot) of the arguments he has made allegations against his advocate R.Kempegowda saying that the said Advocate was threatening him without explaining the contents of the papers, he had withheld the papers. Further he makes allegations that the second party bribed K.S.Nanjappa an Advocate from Mandya and obtained false character certificate about the accused and second party has succeeded in the Court based on such character certificate leading to reducing the subsistence allowance granted to him. Further, he alleges that his advocate R.Kempegowda had indirectly joined hands with second party to see that adverse orders are passed against him and colluded with Advocate K.S.Nanjappa, thereby he has cheated him. 18. Further, he alleges that his advocate R.Kempegowda had indirectly joined hands with second party to see that adverse orders are passed against him and colluded with Advocate K.S.Nanjappa, thereby he has cheated him. 18. At page No.32 (accused has given page number at the foot of the page), in the last paragraph he states as follows: “Taking advantage of the first party weakness, the second party Advocate has colluded with the Presiding Officer and also Court staff is giving torture and harassing in many ways to the first party. Hence the First party has listed all these harassment details and has complained to High Court as well as Government the copy of the complaint is marked as Annexure-7 and Annexure-8 and the same is submitted to this Court also” (Emphasis supplied) 19. At page No.33 in Ex.C22, his allegations against the Presiding Officer and Staff are as follows: “Further the second party advocate, previous Presiding Officers and Court Staff are all involved in anti-constitutional activities and doing illegal activities, anti-national, disastrous and anti-social activities …………..…………. Further outside support is also being extended by the earlier Presiding Officer’s to the second party advocate …………………………………………….” (Emphasis supplied) 20. At page 35 in Ex.C22 second unnumbered para, the allegations against the Presiding Officer is as follows: “…………….. But the earlier Presiding Officers have colluded with the second party advocate to favour them in this case .” (Emphasis supplied) 21. In page 42, he makes the following statements against Sri M.V.Ashwath Narayana, Judge as follows: “The Advocates appearing on behalf of Workman and Workman Representatives of Labour Court, Mysore have earlier protested against the above said Judge (Mr.Ashwath Narayan) and also have lodged complaint to Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka . For so many days they have staged protest also and thereby have condemned the atrocities of said Judge Mr.Ashwathnarayana and this news was published in “Andolana Local Kannada Paper” also.” 22. Ex.C6 is the affidavit dated 12.07.2013 sent by him to the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court, the then Administrative Judge of Mysuru District and the Registrar General of this High Court. That is shown as Annexure-R2 in which he has complained against Sri Ashwath Narayana and Sri Vantigodi, the Presiding Officers of Labour Court, Mysuru. The same is in Kannada. That is shown as Annexure-R2 in which he has complained against Sri Ashwath Narayana and Sri Vantigodi, the Presiding Officers of Labour Court, Mysuru. The same is in Kannada. In that affidavit, on oath he alleges that Judges had colluded with his opponent’s Advocate and gave preferential treatment to his opponents. He alleges that those Officers under threats have extracted incorrect statement from him in his cross-examination. He further alleges that the Court Officer misbehaved with him, lady staff and bench clerk spoke to him in rude manner and threatened to assault him. Presiding Officers were not impartial. 23. Ex.C3 is an application made by him under Section 151 of CPC accompanied by affidavit filed before the Labour Court in I.I.D.No.98/2009 which is again in Kannada. In the application he alleges that the Court without giving him appropriate opportunity is illegally proceeding to pass order on domestic inquiry, therefore he is required to object the same. Hence the case be preponed. In paragraphs 4 and 6 of his affidavit again he claims that the Court is conducting the proceedings illegally. In para 7 he alleges that Court has colluded with his opponent’s advocate and doing partiality in conducting the proceedings. In para 4 he says that he has produced the documents running into 1471 pages in his defence, but the Court has not taken them into consideration and showing partiality. 24. Ex.C4 is another application dated 05.08.2013 coupled with the affidavit Ex.C4(a) submitted by him on 05.08.2013 in I.I.D.No.98/2009. In the application, he states that the Judge has conducted the proceedings deliberately in an illegal manner and has passed illegal order. He further states that he has applied for the Court records under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 and until they are furnished the Court shall not pass any order on the issue regarding fairness of domestic inquiry. In Ex.C4(a) he claims that the applications be treated as part of affidavit. Ex.C4(b) is another affidavit dated 06.08.2013 submitted in the very same proceedings. In para 3 of the said affidavit, he alleges that the conduct of the Judge seeking transfer of the said case creates doubt about him and until furnishing him the information that all the records in the case are intact, the case should not be transferred to any other Court. 25. The accused admits all the above documents. In para 3 of the said affidavit, he alleges that the conduct of the Judge seeking transfer of the said case creates doubt about him and until furnishing him the information that all the records in the case are intact, the case should not be transferred to any other Court. 25. The accused admits all the above documents. CW.1 in his affidavit evidence deposed that though the case was old one, the same was stalled due to the previous Presiding Officer seeking transfer of the case to some other Court on account of conduct of the accused. He further deposed that later when he was posted to the said Court, he took up the matter, secured the presence of the accused by issuing notices to him. He further deposed that on 31.05.2022 on passing interim order on the applications of the accused the matter was adjourned. On 27.06.2022, the accused submitted his objections to the application of second party and written arguments making allegations against previous Presiding Officers, Court Staff, Advocates and the Court in a derogative language. He deposed that on he passing orders on the application on 11.06.2022, the accused filed review application, again making contemptuous allegations of the Presiding Officer cheating him and threatening CW.1 of writing derogatory letters to the High Court and about he recording of such misconduct of the accused in the order sheet. He also spoke about the documents Exs.C1 to Ex.C30 which contained the documents already discussed above. 26. Similarly, CW.2 also spoke about the conduct of the accused, about he habitually filing applications to stall the proceedings and when the matter was posted for orders on I.A.No.13, the accused getting the same advanced and filing affidavit along with the letter addressed by the accused to the High Court making allegations of the Presiding Officer colluding with second party, favoritism and he wrote letter to the High Court for transfer of case. 27. CW.3 is the Deputy Registrar of this Court. Her evidence is formal. As per Ex.C31 she is authorized to appear and represent Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and to produce the documents in the matter. The accused did not cross-examine any of the witnesses. The records show that he declined to cross-examine them claiming that he has no knowledge to cross-examine the witnesses. Her evidence is formal. As per Ex.C31 she is authorized to appear and represent Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka and to produce the documents in the matter. The accused did not cross-examine any of the witnesses. The records show that he declined to cross-examine them claiming that he has no knowledge to cross-examine the witnesses. To help him, the Court assigned him four advocates viz.,(i) Sri Nitin Ramesh, (ii) Sri Amruthesha, (iii) Sri N.S.Sampangi Ramaiah and (iv) Sri Vinayaka V.S. But he went on making allegations against them also. Therefore, they sought their discharge and they were relieved. 28. On 09.06.2025, when the matter was taken up for arguments, the accused filed memo seeking transfer of his complaint to the Office of His Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka. That was rejected on the ground that under the Act, the Court has no power to pass such order. He was called upon to adduce his evidence, but for which he said he has produced the copies of the representation and other records. When the records were examined, it was found that the cross- examination was not conducted on the ground that the accused has no knowledge. 29. On 20.06.2025 this Court with the consent of the accused appointed Sri Vinayaka V.S., learned Counsel as Amicus Curiae and adjourned the matter to 24.06.2025. However, bypassing the Amicus Curiae, the accused himself had filed memo in the Registry making allegations against Sri Vinayaka.V.S., learned Amicus Curiae, Registrar General and the staff of this Court. Further in the memo, he claimed that recalling the witnesses for the cross-examination affects his interests. Therefore the same shall not be recalled. He went to the extent of making allegations that on 09.06.2025 and 20.06.2025, this Court has taken his signatures in the order sheets by wielding force. This Court observing that such allegations are vexatious and the proceedings on those days were video recorded, rejected the memo. Even other prayers in the memo were rejected with reasoned order. Due to such conduct of the accused, even Sri Vinayaka V.S, learned Amicus Curiae sought to relieve him from the role of Amicus Curiae and he was relieved. 30. So far as cross-examination, since the accused claimed that he is not ready to cross-examine the witnesses even if they are summoned, this Court proceeded further and reserved the matter for judgment. 30. So far as cross-examination, since the accused claimed that he is not ready to cross-examine the witnesses even if they are summoned, this Court proceeded further and reserved the matter for judgment. At this stage, it is material to note that before this Court the accused filed memos, documents etc. only in Kannada claiming that he does not know English language, whereas Exs.C21 and C22, the application and written arguments, Ex.C23/the affidavit submitted by the accused himself before the Labour Court are all in fluent English language. Further in his own statement Ex.C22, while refuting the contention of the second party that he is an MBA Graduate, he admits that he was pursuing MBA, but claims that he had failed. Even in Ex.C6 page 29 he has claimed that he has filed the documents running in 1471 pages and before this Court, when he was called upon to argue the matter, he audaciously claimed that he has produced the documents running around 1500 pages and the same should be treated as his arguments and the Court should pass the judgment. Such conduct of the accused substantiates the contentions of CW.1 that the accused wanted to prolong the proceedings before the trial Court as he was getting the wages under Section 17B of the I.D.Act, therefore he went on filing applications and the memos to stall the proceedings and whenever the Presiding Officers tried to expedite the matter, he kept on making the contemptuous allegations against them, Court staff and Advocates only with an intention to see that they will withdraw from the proceedings and matter gets prolonged. Before this Court, he did not make any scant effort to justify or substantiate such allegations made by him against the Presiding Officers, Court Staff etc. 31. The conduct of the accused did not end with making allegations against CWs.1, 2, their Staff, Advocates etc. Since 2022, this matter is heard/handled by many Judges of this Court who had the roster of contempt of Court cases. The accused has not even spared the Judges of this Court who have heard this matter. The said allegations and the documents in which they are found are as follows: (i) Page Nos.107 and 108 of the compilation submitted by the accused - He alleges that roster Bench Judges together took his signature on some English letters without furnishing the copies of the same. The said allegations and the documents in which they are found are as follows: (i) Page Nos.107 and 108 of the compilation submitted by the accused - He alleges that roster Bench Judges together took his signature on some English letters without furnishing the copies of the same. One of them finished translating English documents to him in Kannada in hardly one or two sentences and they conducted further proceedings on that day in English. He has further alleged that their Lordships conducted the drama of explaining him in Kannada language and asking him to submit his reply and unlawfully obstructed him from submitting his objection/explanation and subjected him to indescribable harassment. (ii) In his memo dated 19.03.2024 the accused has made reckless allegations against the roster Judges and the Government Advocate. The substance of which is as follows: (a) They exploited him leading to he suffering innumerable troubles and financial difficulties; & (b) Without considering his explanation for his absence in the proceedings, Judges in conspiracy and according to their convenience, through Mandya Police forcibly got executed bond for Rs.25,000/- from him. (iii) The Court staff and Amicus Curiae also harassed him. (iv) In his statement of objections dated 20.11.2024 submitted in the Registry on 20.11.2024 he alleges that the roster Judges of this Court in concert with each other indulged in judicial misconduct, partiality and caused injustice. He has made several other contemptuous statements against the Judges. (v) In his letter dated 24.01.2025, he makes similar allegations against the Judges of this Court. (vi) In his memo dated 15.04.2025 he alleges that his signatures were taken on the documents without permitting him to read them, keeping him under the threat of criminal action. 32. The above conduct of the accused goes to show that he is habituated in attacking the Judges, making scandalous allegations against them to lower the majesty of the Court and to interfere with the due course of judicial proceeding and to obstruct administration of justice. The accused has no remorse for his conduct instead of that he went on exhibiting recalcitrant and contumacious conduct with CWs.1 and 2 and the Officers and Officials of the Labour Court and further went on making contemptuous allegations against the Judges of this Court. The accused has no remorse for his conduct instead of that he went on exhibiting recalcitrant and contumacious conduct with CWs.1 and 2 and the Officers and Officials of the Labour Court and further went on making contemptuous allegations against the Judges of this Court. His acts clearly constitute the offence of criminal contempt of Court within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act and covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kurle ’s case referred to supra. Thus in this case, we have no hesitation to hold that the charge that the accused has committed criminal contempt of Court is proved warranting his conviction for the said offence. 33. The allegations made against the Judges of this Court is subsequent to framing of charge in this case, therefore that constitutes another cause of action which warrants another contempt proceedings against him. Further steps have to be taken for that. 34. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER Criminal contempt petition is allowed. Accused is hereby convicted for criminal contempt of Court punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. ORDER ON SENTENCE After passing the judgment of conviction, the accused was called upon to submit on sentence. But he is not prepared to submit on the sentence and goes on stating that the judgment is passed without hearing him. He submits that he wants to seek review of the matter. As the matter is listed for pronouncement of judgment, unless the order of sentence is passed, the judgment itself is incomplete. Therefore there is no merit in the contention that in the matter he should be permitted first to file review petition. Hence prayer rejected. Sri Tejesh P., learned HCGP submits that the materials on record clearly show that the accused is habituated in making scandalous allegations against the Judges, Court Staff and Amicus Curiae and the conduct of the accused shows that there is no chance of his reformation. Therefore appropriate sentence shall be imposed. The evidence on record discussed in the judgment clearly shows that the accused is trying to take the Courts for ride and consistently he is interfering with the administration of justice by making allegations against the Judges so that they will recuse from the case. He is adopting the same strategy even in this case. Therefore this matter is prolonged for three years. He is adopting the same strategy even in this case. Therefore this matter is prolonged for three years. Even when he is called upon to submit on his sentence, he does not express any remorse and goes on challenging the Court. Therefore to preserve and protect the majesty of the Court and justice, it is appropriate to deal with him in firm hands by imposing maximum prescribed sentence. Hence, the accused is sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.2,000/-. In case, the accused fails to deposit the fine amount, same shall be recovered in accordance with law. Registrar (Judicial) shall issue conviction warrant against the accused as per Rule 16 of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. Furnish free copy of this judgment to the accused. In view of the observations made in the judgment regarding contemptuous acts of the accused against the Judges of this Court during the course of this proceeding, place the matter before Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice for needful action.