Allahabad High Court
In Re vs Kanhaiya Lal Gautam, Advocate on 12 April, 2017
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon, Rajul Bhargava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 9th March, 2017 Delivered on 12th April, 2017 A.F.R. Court No. - 10 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 30 of 2015 Applicant :- In Re Opposite Party :- Kanhaiya Lal Gautam, Advocate Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kanhaiya Lal Gautam,In Person Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Kanhaiya Lal Gautam, Advocate in person and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Special Counsel for the Court.
We have also examined the records of the present Criminal Contempt Application in detail.
Smt. Tripati Chaudhari, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura made reference dated 13th May, 2015 under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act to the High Court, stating therein that Kanhaiya Lal Gautam, Advocate along with his two sons, namely, Gokulesh Gautam and Awdhesh Gautam, said to be Advocates in their individual capacity also accused in case Crime No. 3008 of 2015 (State Versus Kanhaiyal Lal Gautam & Others) under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura created a scene during hearing of miscellaneous applications on 13th May, 2015 at about 12.50 p.m.. Disturbance created by the acts of Sri Kanhaiya Lal Gautam resulted in the disruption of the Court proceedings. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had to retire to her chambers.
The exact incident as reported by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate is that at around 12.50 p.m. when the Court was dealing with miscellaneous applications, Kanhaiya Lal Gautaum initiated disturbance by mentioning that the counsel for the other side accompanied by 10 to 12 Gundas has arrived in the Court. The Chief Judicial Magistrate inquired from Kanhaiya Lal Gautam, who are goons referred to by him. Kanhaiya Lal pointed towards Uama Kant Chaturvedi, a lawyer, who was appearing in an other case i.e. State versus Rajeev. He also pointed towards other Advocates accompanying Uma Kant Chaturvedi as his juniors.
The accusation so made was opposed by Sri Uma Kant Chaturvedi, Advocate and his juniors. On this, scuffle took place between Kanhaiya Lal Gautam and his sons on one side and Uma Kant Chaturvedi and his juniors on other hampering the Court's work. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had to leave the Court. The proceedings had to be adjourned till 2:00 p.m. The Chief Judicial Magistrate in her letter also indicated that on previous occasions also, whenever the cases in which Kanhaiya Lal Gautam and his sons are accused was listed for hearing, Kanhaiya Lal Gautam starts making uncalled for allegations against the counsel for the opposite parties. His language and behaviour during the Court proceedings is not of the standard expected from a practicing Advocate.
It was specifically reported that the incident was instigated by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam to suit his design to scuttle the judicial proceedings.
Letter/report of the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Smt. Tripta Chaudhari addressed to the then District Judge, Mathura dated 13th May, 2015 reads as follows:
** egksn;] fouez fuosnu gS fd vkt fnukad 13-5-15 dks le; 12-50 cts tc eS izdh.kZ izkFkZuk i=ksa dh lquokbZ dj jgh Fkh rks Jh dUgS;kyky xkSre ,MoksdsV vius nks iq=ksa Jh xksdys'k xkSre o Jh vo/ks'k xkSre tks fd vf/koDrk Hkh gSa ,oa tks eqdnek la[;k 3008@15 jkT; izfr dUgS;kyky xkSre o vU; /kkjk 323]325]504]506 Hkk0n0la0 Fkkuk dksrokyh ftyk eFkqjk esa vfHk;qDr gS] ds lkFk vk;sA izkFkZuk i=ksa dh lquokbZ ds e/; muds }kjk O;o/kku iSnk djrs gq, dgk x;k fd vkt muds izdj.k esa 10&12 xq.Mksa ds lkFk foi{khx.k vk;s gSA tc esjs }kjk ;g iwNk x;k fd dkSu xq.Ms gSa] uke crkbZ;s rks muds }kjk lkeus [kM+s vf/koDrk Jh mekdkUr prqosZnh tks jkT; izfr jktho dh i=koyh esa vius fdlh izdh.kZ izkFkZuk i= dha lquokbZ gsrq mifLFkr Fks] dh vksj rFkk muds twfu;j vf/koDrkvksa dh vksj b'kkjk djrs gq, xq.Ms gksuk crk;kA bl ij Jh mekdkUr prqosZnh ,MoksdsV ,oa muds twfu;j vf/koDrkvksa ds }kjk fojks/k fd;k x;k vkSj mlh le; nksuksa i{kks ds e/; fookn xgjkus yxk vkSj >xM+k 'kq: gks x;k ftlds pyrs U;kf;d dk;Z esa O;o/kku iSnk gqvk vkSj eq>s foJke d{k esa vkuk iM+k rFkk izkFkZuk i=ksa dh is'kh dh lquokbZ nks cts ds fy, LFkfxr djuh iM+h rFkk U;k;ky; d{k esa mifLFkr dksVZ ekSgfjZj ,oa iSjksdkjksa ,ao mifLFkr vU; vf/koDrkvks ds }kjk chp cpko fd;k x;kA egksn; dks ;g Hkh voxr djkuk gS fd mijksDr vf/koDrk Jh dUgS;kyky xkSre blls iwoZ Hkh tc tc budh i=koyh lquokbZ gsrq fu;r gksrh gS rks U;k;ky; esa mDr vf/koDrk Jh dUgS;kyky xkSre bl ckr dh f'kdk;r djrs jgrs gS fd foi{kh xq.Mksa ds lkFk vk;k gSA mudh Hkk"kk ,oa vkpj.k U;kf;d e;kZnk ds izfrdwy gksrk gSA ** A copy of the letter/report of the then Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 13th May, 2015 as addressed to the District Judge, Mathura, who was inturn forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court vide letter no. 1119/XV dated May, 14th May, 2015.
The Officer-On-Special Duty (Contempt), High Court was required to submit his report on the complaint of the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. The Officer-On-Special Duty submitted his report dated 12th June, 2015 stating that the matter may be taken notice of as the conduct of Kanhaiya Lal Gautam may require to be dealt with as a criminal contempt. The relevant part of the report reads as under:
"From the perusal of the complaint reference, the act of Sri Kanhaiya Lal Gautam, Advocate comes under the purview of Contempt proceedings because it has become his habit of deliberately creating obstruction in the proceeding of the court and lower down the dignity and authority of the court."
Kanhaiya Lal Gautam wrote a letter to the Administrative Judge of District Court, Mathura dated 3rd June, 2015 narrating his version of the incident, which took place on 13th May, 2015. The Administrative Judge vide order dated 18th June, 2015 directed that the letter be placed before the District Judge, Mathura, who may submit his comments and to take appropriate action.
A Committee of two Hon'ble Judges of the High Court examined the records and thereafter recommended for the matter being placed before the Criminal Contempt Court for appropriate action vide its resolution dated 16th July, 2015.
The Hon'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 23rd July, 2015 approved the said report and directed that the records be placed before the Bench hearing criminal contempt matters.
A Bench of two Hon'ble Judges at the relevant time hearing the criminal contempt matters, on examination of the records, as were made available to it, found that there were allegations of scuffle between two sides of lawyers leading to the disturbance of the Court proceedings, while recommendation had been made to take action only against Kanhaiya Lal Gautam. The Division Bench, therefore, found it fit and proper to call for a detail report about the incident and involvement of other lawyers, whose names deserved to be identified for having disturbed the Court proceedings which amounts to interference in the administration of Justice. The Division Bench vide order dated 4th August, 2015 required the District Judge to call for a fresh report from the concerned officer or any other source or by making an enquiry himself and then to submit a fresh report.
In compliance to the order of the Division Bench, as the then Chief Judicial Magistrate Smt. Tripta Chaudhari had been transferred to another Judgeship Saharanpur by way of promotion as Additional District Judge, the District Judge, Mathura vide letter dated 13th August, 2015 required the present Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, Sri Raj Veer Singh to conduct an inquiry and submit a report after collecting evidence in that regard as to what had happened on the alleged date in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.
Sri Raj Veer Singh submitted a detail report after recording statements of large number of witnesses on 17th August, 2015 and concluded as under:
** tkap lk{kh Jh mekdkUr prqosZnh ,MoksdsV] Jh f'kojke flag ,MoksdsV] Jh vuqt dqekj ,MoksdsV] Jh jke xksiky iVSy] Jh xksdys'k 'kekZ ,MoksdsV] Jh e/kqou nRr prqosZnh ,MoksdsV] Jh lrh'k prqosZnh ,MoksdsV o Jh v'kksd dqekj mik/;k; vk'kqfyfid] Jh eFkqjk izlkn fyfid] dksVZ iSjksdkj Jh ekSgde flag Fkkuk o`Unkou] Jh nhid voLFkh DydZ lhts,e] dk;kZy;] Jh eksj eqdqV lkjLor] iwoZ is'kdkj] U;k;ky; lhts,e dksVZ ekSgfjZj Jh izeksn dqekj] dksVZ eksgfjZj Jh gjhvkse xkSre ds lk{; ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd fnukad 13-5-15 dks Jh dUgS;kyky xkSre ,MoksdsV }kjk Jh mekdkUr prqosZnh ,MoksdsV dks Hkjs U;k;ky; esa xq.Mk dgk x;k rFkk U;k;ky; }kjk ,slk dgus ls euk djus ij vkSj vf/kd mRrsftr gks x;s rFkk ekjus ihVus gsrq geyokj gksdj U;kf;d dk;Z esa ck/kk mRiUu dh gS rFkk mudk vkjpj.k U;k;ky; ds ckcr vHknz] v'kksHkuh; rFkk voekuuh; gS rFkk mUgha ds }kjk gh okn fookn o >xM+s dks vxzlkfjr fd;k gSA ** The learned District Judge, Mathura submitted his report dated 18th August, 2015 addressed to the Officer-On-Special Duty (Judicial/Litigation), High Court, Allahabad, wherein he concluded as under:
"...it is apparent that on 13/5/2015 Shri Kanhaiya Lal Gautam addressed Shri Uma Kant Chaturvedi advocate was a Gonda in Court and when the Court refrained him from saying so, he became agitated and attempted to assault, Uma Kant Chaturvedi as a result of which the Judicial work got held up. His conduct was contemptuous and condemnable and it was he who was aggressor in this episode. The sons of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Gautam have not been named by these witnesses among the instigators. The statements of the witnesses named above may be perused by the Hon'ble Court, gist of which has been submitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate in his report and all the statements have been annexed by him with his report. These statements would form part of the report."
The Division Bench after considering the material so received and on record found that the brawl had begun because of allegations made by Kanhaiya Lal in the presence of his two sons and that prima facie responsibility in that regard lay upon Kanhaiya Lal Gautam. Accordingly, the Division Bench vide order dated 9th September, 2015 framed following charge against Kanhaiya Lal Gautam fixing 1st October, 2015 as the date by which he was asked to submit his response with a further direction to remain present before the appropriate Bench of this Court on that date. The relevant part of the order reads as under:
"You Kanahiya Lal Gautam allegedly along with your two sons on 13.5.2015 at about 12.50 p.m. were present in the court of the then Chief Judicial Magistrate Tripta Chaudhary and created a rucus by levelling allegations against some lawyers, particularly against Sri Uma Kant Chaturvedi and his juniors and then entered into a brawl that resulted in disrupting the court proceedings that were going on which intensified to such an extent that the Presiding Officer had to abandon the court and retire to her chambers.
You Kanahiya Lal Gautam, therefore, appear to have acted in a manner that amounts to substantially interfering with the course of justice and not allowing the court to function which amounts to a criminal contempt as per Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and therefore you are hereby called upon to answer the said charge in the light of the report of the then Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 13.5.2015 as forwarded by the letter of the learned District Judge dated 14.5.2015 and the subsequent report of the present Chief Judicial Magistrate Sri Raj Veer Singh dated 17.8.2015 that has been further explained by the learned District Judge in his report dated 18.8.2015. This court is, therefore, of the opinion that you deserve to be tried for having committed the criminal contempt by having caused an obstruction to the course of justice deliberately by your act as mentioned aforesaid which is liable to be punished under the 1971 Act. You may, therefore, put in your defence by answering the aforesaid charge by the next date fixed."
It is worthwhile for us to reproduce the last part of the order dated 9th September, 2015 also as it has specifically been objected to by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam before us.
The relevant last part reads as below:
"It may be mentioned that the contemnor moved an application even before notice that was received by the Joint Registrar on 24.8.2015 and was sent to this court in the present criminal contempt inspite of the fact that notice had not yet been issued to the contemnor. The contemnor appears to be trying to take up a defence through the said application dated 24.8.2015. The said application was not maintainable in law, inasmuch as, so long as charges are not framed and notices not issued the contemnor could not have put in any appearance or filed an application. The office should, therefore, take care in receiving the applications in such matters where cognizance has not yet been taken and report the matter accordingly which has not been done in the present case. We are not taking notice of the application and the affidavit filed in support thereof by the contemnor bearing no.290029 of 2015 and it shall be open to the contemnor to file a fresh affidavit in response to the charges framed today in accordance with law."
Kanhaiya Lal Gautam made Application No. 345189 of 2015 dated 30th September, 2015 making uncalled for accusation against the Senior Judge of the Division Bench which had framed the charges against Kanhaiya Lal Gautam vide order dated 9th September, 2015. The relevant paragraphs of the application of Kanhaiya Lal Gautam are being quoted herein below:
"4- यह fd vkids }kjk irk ugha D;ksa i=koyh ij miyC/k mijksDr vkifRr;ksa dks utj vankt djrs gq, mDr izdj.k esa of.kZr vijk/k gsrq fy;s x;s laKku ds lUnHkZ esa vkns'k @ funsZ'k fnukad %& 09-09-2015 ds fo:) vfr'kh?kz vfxze oS|kfud dk;Zokgh ds okLrs iz;Ru fd;s tk jgs gSaA 8- ;g gS fd mDr izdj.k esa lquokbZ ds fy;s fiNyh fu;r fnukad %& 08-09-2015 dks lquokbZ ds nkSjku Hk;Hkhr ,oe~ ng'kr vkfn esa ykus ds fy;s izkFkhz@ ihfMri{kdkj dks fcuk lqus vkids ¼ekuuh; U;k;ky;½ }kjk Hkxk fn;k x;k FkkAß Kanhaiya Lal Gautam after passing of the order of the Court dated 9th September, 2015 framing charge forwarded three applications addressed to the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Registrar General and third also to the Registrar General dated 5th October, 2015, which were received in the Registry on 17th October, 2015. In these applications there is no allegation against the sitting Judge who has framed the charge.
The subsequent Division Bench of this Court, while considering the allegations made in the application dated 30th September, 2015 by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam, referred to above, found that the allegations were contemptuous and had the effect of lowring the Majesty of this Court in the eyes of common man. The Division Bench after taking note of paragraphs nos. 4 and 8 of the application made by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam dated 30th September, 2015 decided to frame additional charge of criminal contempt against the accused Kanhaiya Lal Gautam vide order dated 27th October, 2015, which reads as follows:
"You Kanhaiya Lal Gautam in paragraph nos. 4 and 8 of the application dated 30.09.2015 have made baseless and uncalled for allegations against the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court who had passed the order dated 09.09.2015. Such uncalled for allegations tend to lower the authority of the Court in the eyes of common man, therefore, criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Contemnor may submit his reply in form of an affidavit by the next date."
By means of the same order dated 27th October, 2015, the Division Bench further restrained Kanhaiya Lal Gautam from entering the premises of the District Court, Mathura.
Kanhaiya Lal Gautam filed his objections by means of the counter affidavit to the charges. In the counter affidavit so filed, Kanhaiya Lal Gautam denied the manner in which the incident has been reported by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. According to Kanhaiya Lal Gautam he was the victim and the counsel for the other side Uma Kant Chaturvedi was the assailant. According to Kanhaila Lal in fact on 13th May, 2015, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura after accepting huge amount of money with the help of notorious Gunda, ancestral speculator and land mafiya, businessman Uma Kant Chaturvedi, Advocate along with 10-12 other Advocate friends in a planned way assaulted Kanhaiya Lal and his two sons, namely, Gokulesh Gautam and Avdhesh Gautam. They were beaten with Laat, Ghoonsa, Thappad, butt of a revolver and Rs. 1700/- which were with Kanhaiya Lal Gautam were also looted. Kanhaiya Lal Gautam immediately made an application before the Presiding Officer being Application No. 54-B on which Presiding Officer made an order, free hand English translation whereof reads as follows:
"the applicant is free to take such legal course on the facts as may be available"
It is his case that he has been falsely implicated in the present contempt proceedings and is being tried unnecessarily.
Kanhaiya Lal Gautam's reply to the charge, was forwarded to the then Chief Judicial Magistrate for her comments in compliance to the orders of the Court dated 24th November, 2015 and dated 8th July, 2016. The comments from the then Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 26th July, 2016 have been received and form part of the record. Copy of the same was provided to the Contemner on 1st August, 2016.
Order dated 18th November, 2016 passed in the present Contempt Application (Criminal) records that for filing of comprehensive reply to the additional charge, which was framed under the order of the Court dated 27th October, 2015. Kanhaiya Lal Gautam prayed for and was granted 15 days further time.
Kanhaiya Lal Gautam addressed a letter to the Registrar General of the High Court dated 2nd July, 2016 which was received on 13th July, 2016 in the Registry and is part of record. Kanhaiya Lal Gautam was confronted with the said letter and was asked to inform as to whether the said letter has been written by him or not. Kanhaiya Lal Gautam admitted in the open Court that the letter dated 2nd July, 2016 had been written by him. It is worthwhile to reproduce the contents of the said letter along with the prayer, which read as follows:
"Jheku~ jftLVªkj tujy] mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkcknA fo"k;%& izkFkZuk&i= n.M izfdz;k lafgrk 1973 dh /kkjk%& 154 ds vUrxZrA egksn;] fuosnu gS fd ifjoknh%& Jherh r`Rrk pkS/kjh%& eq[; U;kf;d eftLVsªV] eFkqjk }kjk fnukad%& 13@05@2015 dks izkFkZuk&i= izi= la[;k%& 55 c dh lquok;h ds nkSjku U;k;ky; d{k es vius le{k gq;h t?kU; vkijkf/kd ?kVuk ds lgh ,oe~ okLrfod rF;ksa dks fNikdj o de djds vius vkidks ,oe~ vius xq.Mksa dks cpkrs gq;s fnukad %&22@07@2015 'kcnsu ckbZl tkSykbZ nks gtkj iUnzg ds ckn es ,d u;h >wBh ,oe~ eux.kUr dgkuh cukdj dwVjfpr nLrkostks ds vk/kkj ij izdhZ.k QkStnkjh voekuuk izkFkZuk&i= la[;k%&30 lu~ 2015 lUnHkZ cuke~ dUgS;k yky xkSre ,MoksdsV iqjkuh fnukWd vafdr djrs gq;s izsf"kr fd;k x;k FkkA izsf"kr fd;s x;s mijksDr ifjokn dh i=koyh es vU; ds lkFk&lkFk lkt&"k.k;U= djds Jheku~ vejs'oj izrki 'kkgh%& U;k;ewrhZ ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn us vius vf/kdkjksa dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq;s vius v/khuLFkksa vkfn ls vius vkns'k@funsZ'k ij u;h >waBh dgkuh cuok;h x;h ftl ij vusd vkifRr;ksa ds ckotwn Hkh izdhZ.k QkStnkjh voekuuk izkFkZuk&i= la[;k%&30 lu~ 2015 es fnukWd%&09@09@2015 dks izlaKku fy;k x;k gS fy;s x;s izlaKku vkns'k dks mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn dh csolkbZV ij lR;kfir fd;k tk ldrk gSA ysfdu izdhZ.k QkStnkjh voekuuk dsl la[;k%& 33 lu~ 2015 lUnHkZ cuke~ Mh0 ,l0 ,e0 f=ikBh ,MoksdsV vkfn es fnukWd%& 09@09@2015 dks vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd [k.M ihB ds fy;s vf/kdkj izkIr ugh gS [k.M ihB ds lUnHkZ es ikfjr vkns'k dks mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn dh csolkbZV ij lR;kfir fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;fn vki fdlh fcUnq ij dksbZ (sic) pkgrs gS rc izkFkhZ dks le; nsus dk d"V djsa] iwrhZ dj nh tk;sxhA izkFkZuk vr% Jheku~ th ls fouez fuosnu gS izdhZ.k QkStnkjh voekuuk izkFkZuk&i= la[;k%& 30 lu~ 2015 dh i=koyh es dwVjfpr vfHkys[kksa ds fuekZ.k ,oe~ vkijkf/kd "k.k;U= vkfn ds fy;s vU; ds lkFk&lkFk Jheku~ vejs'koj izrki 'kkgh th ds fo:) n.M izfdz;k lafgrk 1973 dh /kkjk%& 154 ds vUrxZr izsf"kr fd;s x;s izkFkZuk&i= ds vk/kkj ij lEcfU/kr okWfPNr /kkjkvksa es vfHk;ksx iathd`r djds dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus ds fy;s Jheku~ Fkkuk/;{k%& Fkkuk ds.V ¼Nkouh½] bykgkckn dks vknsf'kr@funZsf'kr djus dh d`ik djsa ftlls izkFkhZ dh tkueky dh lqj{kk gks ldsA vkidh vfr d`ik gksxhA fnukWd%& 02@07@2016 izkFkhZ g0 viBuh;
¼dUgS;k yky xkSre½ ,MoksdsV fuoklh%& 40' nyir f[kMdh] dks;yk okyh xyh] Fkkuk dksrokyh] eFkqjkA eks0 9410076811, 9410077454"
He forwarded another letter of the same date i.e. 2nd July, 2016 addressed to Hon'ble The Chief Justice, which was received on 22nd July, 2016 in the registry, making allegations against the sitting judges of this Court, namely Justice A.P. Sahi and one of us (Arun Tandon, J.). By means of the said letter, he requested that an inquiry be held in respect of documents having been manufactured for the present contempt proceedings against Justice A.P. Sahi and one of us (Arun Tandon, J.).
What flows from simple reading of the aforesaid letter including the prayer made therein is that Kanhaiya Lal made further insinuations against sitting Judge of this Court and accused him of conspiring and misusing his office. He alleged that it is the Hon'ble Judge who has got forged documents prepared for invoking Kanhaiya Lal Gautam in contempt. He prayed that proceedings under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be initiated against the sitting judges of this Court.
In his reply dated 10th March, 2016 submitted to the supplementary charge framed against Kanhaiya Lal Gautam under order of the Division Bench dated 27th October, 2015 he stated as under:
**izkFkZuk fnukad %& 30@09@2015 ls fopkjk/khu izkFkZuk&i= izi= la[;k%& 345189 lu~ 2015 ds pj.k la[;k%& 04 ,oe~ 08 esa [email protected]{kdkj }kjk lEekuuh; U;k;ewfrZ Jheku~ vejs'oj izrki 'kkgh th ds fOk"k; esa vafdr fd;s x;s fopkj ekuuh; U;k;ky; d{k esa fnukWd %& 08@09@2015 ,oe~ 09@09@2015 dks fd;s x;s O;ogkj vkfn ds dkj.k xq.k&voxq.k ¼eSfjV½ ds vk/kkj ij mfpr ,oe~ lgh vafdr fd;s x;s gS ftlds lUnHkZ esa dze'k% la'kks/ku izkFkZuk&i= izi= la[;k%& 2011 lu~ 2016 ,oe~ 2004 lu~ 2016 fnukad %& 05@01@2015 dks izsf"kr dh tk pqdh gS tks fd vHkh rd fopkjk/khu gS ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk %& 2¼lh½ ds vUrxZr izkjEHk dh x;h vfrfjDr voekuuk dh dk;Zokgh U;k;ky; voekuuk vf/kfu;e 1971 dh /kkjk %&04 ,oe~ 05 ls izfrcaf/kr gS mijksDr of.kZr fopkjksa ¼vk/kkjksa½ dks lEcfU/kr nLrkostksa ls lR;kfir fd;k tk ldrk gS ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fouez fuosnu gS fd yEcs vlsZ ls lqfu;ksftr rjhds ls iqfyl ds vkyk vf/kdkjh;ksa ,oe~ deZpkfj;ksa }kjk >wBh ,oe~ eux.kUr dgkuh cukdj iw.kZr% =qfViw.kZ foospuk ,oe~ U;kf;d vf/kdkjh;ksa }kjk tkucw>dj fd;s tk jgs viw.kZ] vLi"V ,oe~ =qfViw.kZ vkns'k@funsZ'k vkSj lEcfU/kr xq.Mksa dh xq.M;h ls gks jgs 'kkjkfjd] ekufld mRihMu rFkk vkfFkZd 'kks"k.k vkfn ds dkj.k [email protected]{kdkj vc vU;k; ,oe~ vR;kpkj lgus esa fcYdqy Hkh lEF;Z ugh gS rFkk vc dHkh Hkh izk.k fudy ldrs gS FkksMk fy[kk cgqr lef>;s mijksDr of.kZr vk/kkjksa ij U;k;fgr esa vko';d gS fd fMCkkj ds lUnHkZ esa ikfjr vkns'k@funsZ'k fnukad %& 27@10@2015 dks lekIr djus dh d`ik djsa vkSj mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa tgkW lEcfU/kr fopkjk/khu izdhZ.k QkStnkjh voekuuk dsl la[;k%& 30 lu~ 2015 dh ifjoknh vkfn ds fo:) lEcfU/kr t?kU; vkijkf/kd ?kVuk] LFky] fnu o le; ds lUnHkZ esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds vkijkf/kd izdhZ.k ;kfpd la[;k%& 23643 lu~ 2015 es ikfjr vkns'k@fnukad %& 29@09@2015 ds vuqikyu esa ,u0lh0vkj0 la[;k %& 48 lu~ 2015 esa fu"i{k foospuk dh dk;Zokgh yfEcr gks ogkW mijksDr okLrfod o lgh rF;ksa dks fNikdj >wBh ,oe~ eux.kUr dgkuh cukdj dwV jfpr vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij fopkjk/khu voekuuk dh dk;Zokgh ,d gh ?kVuk dh nks fofHkUu dk;Zokgh gksus ds dkj.k lekIr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS ds lUnHkZ es vkns'k@funsZ'k ikfjr djus dh djsaA ** In Criminal Misc. Application No. 262121 of 2016 dated 24th August, 2016 filed by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam, in paragraph-2 and in prayer clause it has been stated as follows:
**02- ;g gS fd fopkjk/khu mijksDr izdh.kZ QkStnkjh voekuuk dsl la[;k%& 30 lu~ 2015 vkids led{k fo}ku ihBklhu U;k;ewfrZ Jheku~ vejs'oj izrki th 'kkgh }kjk cgqr eksVh jde ysdj vU; ds lkFk&lkFk lkt "k.k;U= djds vius vf/kdkjksa dk nq:i;ksx djrs gq;s vius v/khuLFkksa vkfn ls vius vkns'k@funsZ'k ij lEcfU/kr t?kU; vkijkf/kd ?kVuk ds lgh ,oe~ okLrfod rF;ksa dks fNikdj o de djds rS;kj djk;s x;s dwVjfpr vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij gS ftls vki lEcfU/kr i=koyh ls lR;kfir dj ldrs gSA ** izkFkZuk ekuuh; egksn; ls fouez fuosnu gS fd vkids led{k fo}ku ihBklhu U;k;ewfrZ Jheku~ vejs'oj izrki th 'kkgh ds fo:) mfpr ,oe~ lgh RkF; e; lk{;ksa ds lkFk vafdr fd;s x;s gs ftlds dkj.k U;k;ky; voekuuk vf/kfu;e 1971 ds izkfo/kku ykxw ugh gksrs gS ftlds lUnHkZ esa tkWp fopkjk/khu gS ,oe~ fopkjk/khu izdh.kZ QkStnkjh voekuuk dsl la[;k%& 30 lu~ 2015 ds fo"k; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k@funsZ'k fnukad %& 29@09@2015 ds vuqikyu esa foospuk fopkjk/khu gS U;k;fgr esa vko';d gS fd fopkjk/khu izdh.kZ QkStnkjh voekuuk dsl la[;k%& 30 lu~ 2015 ds lkFk&lkFk vfrfjDr vkjksi iqu% yxkus ds lUnHkZ esa izsf"kr uksfVl fnukad%& 01@08@2016 dh dk;Zokgh dks lekIr djus dh d`ik djsa vkSj fopkjk/khu izdh.kZ QkStnkjh voekuuk dsl la[;k%& 30 lu~ 2015 ds lUnHkZ esa vusd vkifRr;ksa ds fopkjk/khu izkFkZuk&i=ksa dks lquokbZ ds okLrs lwphc) djus ds okLrs vknsf'kr@funsZf'kr djus dh d`ik djsaA vkidh vfr d`ik gksxh]A [email protected]{kdkj fnukad %& 24@08@2016 dUgS;k yky ** From the aforesaid, it will be seen that uncalled for allegations have been made against the sitting judge of this Court, who had framed the charges in support whereof there is no material with Contemner at least none has been brought on record.
Similar allegations against the sitting judge of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 29811 of 2017 specifically paragraph nos. 1 to 3 have been made.
From simple reading of the said paragraph, it would be seen that Kanhaiya Lal Gautam accuses the sitting judge of this Court of having taken illegal gratification and of conspiring with others as also of getting documents fabricated.
The Division Bench after considering the said averment, while hearing the matter on 26th August, 2016 inquired from Sri Kanhaiya Lal Gautam to explain as to on what basis it has been written that the Hon'ble sitting Judge has accepted illegal gratification (Moti Rakam). Kanhaiya Lal Gautam gave an evasive reply to the said query as has been noticed in the order dated 26th August, 2016.
Kanhaiya Lal Gautam on 18th October, 2016 submitted that since in respect of the incident which took place on 13th May, 2015 he has got a first information report registered, therefore, the present contempt proceedings must be kept in abeyance in view of Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act. Kanhaiya Lal. He also tried to justify the uncalled for allegations made against the Hon'ble Sitting Judge of this Court with reference to Sections 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
After taking note of the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Division Bench held that the allegations made against the Hon'ble Sitting Judge of this Court cannot be termed as fair criticism within the meaning of Sections 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Large number of applications were filed by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam from time to time with the prayer (a) to summon Smt. Tripati Chaudhari, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura for cross-examination, (b) for transfer of the proceedings to some other Hon'ble Judge and (c) for the proceedings being kept in abeyance because of the first information report lodged by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam, being Application Nos. 29811 of 2017, 2004 of 2016, 290029 of 2015, 103960 of 2016 and 145606 of 2016 were heard and disposed of by the Court on 25th January, 2017. The Court specifically asked Kanhaiya Lal Gautam to press his other applications, which were pending. Kanhaiya Lal Gautam in reply prayed for time to challenge the order which had been passed on the said applications before the Apex Court. He refused to press any other applications. The Court granted a month's time to challenge the order passed on the aforesaid applications and directed that the matter be listed on 28th February, 2017.
On 28th February, 2017 Kanhaiya Lal insisted on disposal of his application made for correction in the order dated 25th January, 2017. The Court after considering the same found no substance therein. Kanhaiya Lal again insisted for grant of time to challenge the order dated 25th January, 2017 before the Apex Court. Request was again accepted and the case was adjourned to 9th March, 2017 with a clear indication that the case would be finally heard on the said date and no further adjournment would be granted.
On 9th March, 2017, the Court insisted upon Kanhaiya Lal Gautam to assist the Court on merits of the proceedings so that the same may be finally decided.
On that date Kanhaiya Lal Gautam read the contents of the application which was filed by him on that very date running into 45 paragraphs and thereafter he refused to address the Court on the merits of charges, which were framed against him. He contended that reply has already been submitted, he needs time to seek legal opinion in the matter and the case may be adjourned. The Court found no justification for granting such a prayer and accordingly rejected the same. Kanhaiya Lal Gautam thereafter refused to assist the Court.
Accordingly, order was reserved in the matter on 9th March, 2017.
Sri Kanhaiya Lal Gautam has filed reply to the comments received from the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, Smt. Tripta Chaudhari by means of Criminal Misc. Application No. 290029 of 2015 dated 24th August, 2015. Except for denying the incident as reported by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate and reiterating that it was Uma Kant Chaturvedi and his ten juniors, who initiated the dispute, there has been no denial to the factum of disruption of the Court proceedings on 13th May, 2015.
Sri Kanhaiya Lal Gautam has also filed written submissions on 9th March, 2017, which are on record. In the written submissions he had again made similar allegations against the sitting judges of this Court specifically in paragraph nos. 33, 36, 37, 46 and 47, which read as follows:
**33- ;g gS fd vkids led{k ihBklhu U;k;ewfrZ Jheku~ vejs'oj izrki 'kkgh us fnukad%& 08@09@2015 dks funksZ"k [email protected]{kdkj ds ekuuh; U;k;ky; igWqpus ls dkQh vk'p;Zpfdr gks x;s fd diViw.kZ rjhds }kjk tkyh nLrkostksa dks rS;kj djk;s tkus ds nkSjku gh tkudkjh fdlus ns nhA ** **36- ;g gS fd funksZ"[email protected]{kdkj }kjk vkids led{k U;k;ewfrZ Jheku~ vejs'oj izrki th 'kkgh vkfn ds fo"k; esa tc&rc dFku lgh ,oe~ okLrfod vafdr fd;s x;s gS vkSj funksZ"[email protected]{kdkj dks ?kksj vU;k; ,oe~ vR;kpkj vkfn ls ncko cukdj nq%[kh ,oe~ ijs'kku vkfn fd;k tk jgk gSA ** ** 37- ;g gS fd funksZ"[email protected]{kdkj }kjk vusd ckj vkids led{k U;k;ewfrZ Jheku~ vejs'oj izrki th 'kkgh ds fo:) dk;Zokgh ,oe~ QthZ eqdnek m|ksx ds vUrxZr fopkjk/khu mijksDr voekuuk dsl ds vUrj.k vkfn ds fOk"k; esa vU; ds lkFk&lkFk lEeku~uh; eq[; U;k;k/kh'k mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn dks vusd ckj izkFkZuk&i= vkfn izsf"kr fd;s tk pqds gS ysfdu vHkh rd funksZ"[email protected]{kdkj dks lEcfU/kr xq.Mksa vkfn ds ncko esa U;k; feyuk rks nwj rjg&rjg ls vU;k; ,oe~ vR;kpkj vkfn lgus dks fey jgk gSA ** **46- ;g gS fd funksZ"[email protected]{kdkj ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds lEekuuh; U;k;k/kh'kx.k Jheku~ vejs'oj izrki 'kkgh th ,oe~ Jheku~ v:.k V.Mu th }kjk fd;s x;s ,oe~ fd;s tk jgs ccZj vU;k; ,oe~ vR;kpkj vkfn ds fOk"k; esa ekuuh; eq[; U;k;k/kh'k] bykgkckn vkfn dks vusd ckj f'kdk;rh izkFkZuk&i= izsf"kr fd;k tk pqdk gS ysfdu vHkh rd dksbZ Hkh oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh ugha gqbZ gS] izsf"kr fd;s x;s f'kdk;rh izkFkZuk&i=ksa dh e; LihM iksLV@jftLVªh jlhn Nk;k izfr vkids voyksdukFkZ lkFk esa layXud la[;k %& ih gSA ** **47- ;g gS fd funksZ"[email protected]{kdkj dks Jheku~ v:.k V.Mu th ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZ mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ls vkaf'kd :i ls Hkh U;k; dh mEehn ugh gSA** From the aforesaid it will be seen that making of uncalled for and baseless allegations against the sitting judges of this Court has become a habit of Kanhaiya Lal Gautam. Attempt appears to be some how or other to get the hearing of the present contempt application adjourned or to get the matter released from the Bench concerned, which is nothing but Bench hunting.
From the stand which has been taken by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam in his written submissions as well as in various applications filed by him, following reply/objections/facts are discernable:
(i) According to Kanhaiya Lal Gautam the incident as reported by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate said to have taken place on 13th May, 2015 is incorrect.
(ii) It was he, who was assaulted upon along with his sons by Sri Uma Kant Chaturvedi and his juniors. He was the victim and they were the assailants.
(iii) In respect of the incident he has lodged a first information report on which investigation has been directed and therefore, proceedings of present contempt application cannot be proceeded with in view of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
(iv) Smt. Tripta Chaudhari, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura must be called for cross-examination to decide the correctness or otherwise of the report submitted by her.
(v) The Court must initiated proceedings against Uma Kant Chaturvedi Advocate along with his other associates in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to punish them.
(vi) Inquiry must be held against sitting judges of this Court for accepting huge money for getting documents manufactured in collusion with goons for the purposes of this contempt application.
Various applications have been filed by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam, which are also on record for the purpose. Kanhaiya Lal Gautam had approached the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of the High Court for the present contempt application being nominated to some other Bench, but the said request has not been accepted.
The reasons assigned in the applications for transfer of the present Bench is that various applications made by Kanhaiya Lal in the present contempt application were not being disposed of and that he has no faith in this Bench.
From the order-sheet of the present proceedings, It is clear that Kanhaiya Lal Gautam himself has getting the matter adjourned on one pretext to other and was filing application after application without pressing most of the applications during Court proceedings.
The Court on 25th January, 2017 had disposed of some of the applications made by him and had insisted that he may press other applications also which he refused to do so.
We may now deal with the objections, which have been raised by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam by means of written submissions as well as by means of the various applications as noticed above point-wise.
So far as the continuance of the present contempt application, despite the first information report having been lodged by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam in respect of the incident which had taken place on 13th May, 2015 is concerned, suffice is to record that the incident as reported by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam in the first information report is with regard to the alterations which had taken place between him and Uma Kant Chaturvedi. The incident so stated has nothing to do with the obstruction of the court proceedings because of the instigation of Kanhaiya Lal Gautam as reported by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate. We are, therefore, of the opinion that lodging of the first information report by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam will not in any way lead to a situation where the proceedings of the present contempt application are required to be kept in abeyance in view of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
We may further record that besides the charge as was originally framed against Kanhaiya Lal Gautam, a supplementary charge was also framed against him under the order of this Court dated 27th October, 2015 in respect whereof there are no criminal proceedings pending. Objection raised by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam in that regard is therefore, rejected.
So far as the summoning of the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura Smt. Tripta Chaudhari is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that such application of Kanhaiya Lal Gautam is only an attempt to harass the lady Judicial Officer. We see no reason as to why the said lady Judicial Officer will submit a false report against the Advocate concerned specifically when there is no material to substantiate the allegations of mala fide.
The Apex Court in the case of M/s. Jindal Industries Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Others, reported in 1991 AIR SC 1832 and Dr. J.N. Banavalikar vs. Municipal Corporation of India & Others reported in 1995 SCC (Suppl.) (4) 89, has explained that allegations of mala fide are essentially allegations of fact, which are not only to be alleged but also to be established by material evidence.
Sri Kanhaiya Lal Gautam has not been able to satisfy the Court as to how the summoning of the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Smt. Tripta Chaudhari is necessary and what prejudice is being caused to him because of the said Judicial Officer being not summoned. Request made in that regard is also rejected.
So far as the plea of initiation of proceedings against Uma Kant Chaturvedi and others in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, the application appears to be wholly misconceived. Kanhaiya Lal Gautam has already initiated proceedings against Uma Kant Chaturvedi and others by lodging the first information, he may pursue the same and if he feels that any contempt of Court has been committed by Uma Kant Chaturvedi, he is free to initiate appropriate proceedings by moving an application before the Advocate General of the State or the Court concerned. The application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the facts of the present case is held to be wholly misconceived.
We have carefully gone through the narration of the incident as reported by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura and that the report of the Joint Registrar of the High Court as well as report submitted by the District Judge dated in compliance to the order of the High Court passed in the present contempt proceedings dated 4th August, 2015.
The reports categorically mention that a tussle took place on 13th May, 2015 in the court of the then Chief Judicial Magistrate at the instigation of Kanhaiya Lal Gautam, the present contemner. Relevant part of the report of the Judicial Officer, Joint Registrar and the District Judge on the aforesaid aspect of the matter have been quoted above.
The explanation furnished by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam to the aforesaid charge is highly evasive and he has tried to explain his conduct during Court proceedings by making allegations against Uma Kant Chaturvedi and his juniors.
The explanation furnished by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam is not to our satisfaction. Entire incident has been instigated by the contemner himself as have been reported by the Authorities, which we see no reason to disbelieve. Therefore the charges as framed under the order of the Court dated 9th September, 2015 stands proved against Kanhaiya Lal Gautam.
What is worst to note is that while facing the said contempt charges, Kanhaiya Lal Gautam has the cheek to make uncalled for allegations against the sitting judges of this Court. Relevant paragraphs of his letters and applications have been quoted above which practice has continued even till the date of filing of the written submissions i.e. the last date of the hearing of this contempt proceedings. These are themselves sufficient to establish that he has little or no respect for the majesty of this Court.
Despite specific query of this Court requiring Kanhaiya Lal Gautam to explain as to on what basis, he has made uncalled for allegations against sitting judge of this Court (Justice A.P. Sahi) in his application for which supplementary charge had been framed under order of the Court dated 27th October, 2015, Kanhaiya Lal Gautam has only tried to evade the reply by suggesting that whatever has been stated is true and correct and is based on what had happened in the Court on 9th September, 2015.
In our opinion, there is nothing on record, which could lead to a inference that the Hon'ble Judge had any personal interest in the matter or that he wanted to create an atmosphere of fear during court proceedings. There is little or no material to substantiate such wild allegations against the sitting judge of this Court.
The allegation against the sitting judge as made in subsequent letters and applications filed have gone bad to worst. He has alleged taking of illegal money in collusion with goondas for manufacturing of documents etc. Not only this Kanhaiya Lal in order to avoid final disposal of the present contempt proceedings started writing letters to the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for the case being transferred from the assigned Bench by making allegations against the Presiding Judge. This practice of seeking transfer of the proceedings to some other Court is also contemptuous as has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Anand versus Registrar, Delhi High Court reported in (2009) 8 SCC 106.
The majesty of this Court and dignity have to be maintained at all cost.
The Apex Court in the case of Mahipal Singh Rana, Advocate versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2016) 8 SCC 335 in paragraph nos. 21, 23, 27, 28,31 & 33 held as under:
"21. So far as the allegations made by the appellant with regard to the complaints made by him against the complainant judge, after having held that the appellant had appeared before the Court and had made contemptuous statements, we are of the opinion that those averments regarding the complaints are irrelevant. The averments regarding the complaints cannot be a defence for the appellant. Even if we assume those averments about the complaints to be correct, then also, the appellant cannot use such contemptuous language in the Court against the presiding Judge.
.........
23.............The appellant had refused to tender apology for his conduct. His affidavit in support of stay vacation/modification and supplementary affidavit did not show any remorse and he had justified himself again and again, which also shows that he had no regards for the majesty of law.
.........
27. We cannot therefore approve the view that merely undergoing the penalty imposed on a contemnor is sufficient to complete the process of purging himself of the contempt, particularly in a case where the contemnor is convicted of criminal contempt. The danger in giving accord to the said view of the learned Single Judge in the aforecited decision is that if a contemnor is sentenced to a fine he can immediately pay it and continue to commit contempt in the same court, and then again pay the fine and persist with his contemptuous conduct. There must be something more to be done to get oneself purged of the contempt when it is a case of criminal contempt.
28.....The first thing to be done in that direction when a contemnor is found guilty of a criminal contempt is to implant or infuse in his own mind real remorse about his conduct which the court found to have amounted to contempt of court. Next step is to seek pardon from the court concerned for what he did on the ground that he really and genuinely repented and that he has resolved not to commit any such act in future. It is not enough that he tenders an apology. The apology tendered should impress the court to be genuine and sincere. If the court, on being impressed of his genuineness, accepts the apology then it could be said that the contemnor has purged himself of the guilt."
..............
31. In Re: Sanjiv Dutta & Ors.[11], it was observed that the members of legal profession are required to maintain exemplary conduct in and outside of the Court. The respect for the legal system was due to role played by the stalwarts of the legal profession and if there was any deviation in the said role, not only the profession but also the administration of justice as a whole would suffer. In this regard, relevant observations are : "20. The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by the its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilised society. ...........................If people lose confidence in the profession on account of the deviant ways of some of its members, it is not only the profession which will suffer but also the administration of justice as a whole. The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked from outside. It is for the members of the profession to introspect and take the corrective steps in time and also spare the courts the unpleasant duty. We say no more."
33. In Jaswant Singh versus Virender Singh[13], it was observed : "36. ............. An advocate has no wider protection than a layman when he commits an act which amounts to contempt of court. It is most unbefitting for an advocate to make imputations against the Judge only because he does not get the expected result, which according to him is the fair and reasonable result available to him. Judges cannot be intimidated to seek favorable orders. Only because a lawyer appears as a party in person, he does not get a license thereby to commit contempt of the Court by intimidating the Judges or scandalising the courts. He cannot use language, either in the pleadings or during arguments, which is either intemperate or unparliamentary. These safeguards are not for the protection of any Judge individually but are essential for maintaining the dignity and decorum of the Courts and for upholding the majesty of law. Judges and courts are not unduly sensitive or touchy to fair and reasonable criticism of their judgments. Fair comments, even if, out-spoken, but made without any malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice and made in good faith in proper language do not attract any punishment for contempt of court. However, when from the criticism a deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring down the image of judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the administration of justice or tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute the courts must bistre themselves to uphold their dignity and the majesty of law. The appellant, has, undoubtedly committed contempt of the Court by the use of the objectionable and intemperate language. No system of justice can tolerate such unbridled licence on the part of a person, be he a lawyer, to permit himself the liberty of scandalising a Court by casting unwarranted, uncalled for and unjustified aspersions on the integrity, ability, impartiality or fairness of a Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions as it amounts to an interference with the dues course of administration of justice."
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the charges as framed against Kanhaiya Lal Gautam under orders of this Court dated 9th September, 2015 and dated 27th October, 2015 stand fully established. Kanhaiya Lal Gautam is held to be guilty of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. We are satisfied that repeated acts of criminal contempt committed by Kanhaiya Lal Gautam are of such nature that these substantially interfere with the due course of justice. We, thus, punish him under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with two months imprisonment and also impose fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In case of non-payment of fine he will undergo imprisonment for a further period of two weeks. However, the punishment so imposed shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 30 days to enable the contemner Kanhaiya Lal Gautam to approach the Apex Court, if so advised. We further direct that the contemner shall not be permitted to enter the Court premises till he purges himself of the contempt within the meaning assigned for the purpose under the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mahipal Singh Rana, Advocate (Supra) before the High Court as well as before the Civil Court.
(Rajul Bhargava, J.) (Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 12.04.2017
Sushil/-
Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 30 of 2015
Applicant :- In Re
Opposite Party :- Kanhaiya Lal Gautam, Advocate
Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kanhaiya Lal Gautam,In Person
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
For orders, see our order of date passed on the separate sheets.
(Rajul Bhargava, J.) (Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 12.04.2017
Sushil/-