Allahabad High Court
In Re vs Sri Khaleeq Ahmad And 40 Others ... on 22 September, 2017
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Judgment reserved on 19.12.2016 Judgment delivered on 22.09.2017 Court No. - 34 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 29 of 2010 Applicant :- In Re Opposite Party :- Sri Khaleeq Ahmad And 40 Others Advocates Counsel for Applicant :- A. G. A. Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arun Kumar Singh I,Mohit Bihari Mathur, P.C.Srivastava Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J)
1. Heard Sri Dhruv Narain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contemnor, assisted by Sri Namit Srivastava, Advocate and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, special counsel appearing on behalf of High Court.
2. This criminal contempt proceeding cropped up on a reference made by Sri Saeed Uz Zaman Siddiqui, District Judge, Jyotiba Phule Nagar at Amroha (hereinafter referred to as "J.P. Nagar") for initiating contempt proceedings under Section 15 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1971") read with Section 12 against 41 Advocates namely, (1) Sri Khaleeq Ahmad, (2) Kapil Chikara, (3) Rashid Mian, (4) Gaurav Kumar Agarwal, (5) Ram Autar Gupta, (6) Sunil Babu, (7) Rajeev Gole, (8) Saleem Khan, (9) Chaudhary Naresh Veer Singh, (10) Vivek Bishnoi, (11) Naeem Ahmad, (12) Kripal Singh Yadav, (13) Mohd. Ali Naqvi, (14) Indrapal Gole, (15) Dilshad Ali, (16) Sajid Rauf, (17) Dinesh Chauhan, (18) Manu Sharma, (19) Ali Imam Rizvi, (20) Arshad Bharti, (21) Jai Prakash Yadav, (22) Surya Pratap Singh, (23) Bharat Singh Saini, (24) Vinod Kumar, (25) Raj Chaudhary, (26) Nadeem Khusro, (27) Rajendra Singh Saini, (28) Dinesh Singh, (29) Vinod Kumar Saini, (30) Ashok Kumar Kapoor, (31) Chain Sukh Gole, (32) Sarvesh Sharma, (33) Basant Singh Saini, (34) Pawnesh Chauhan, (35) Avnish Sharan Bansal, (36) Shrafat Hussain, (37) Mangat Ram Saini, (38) Nitin Bansal, (39) Hukum Singh Saini, (40) Dalpat Singh; and, (41) Amit Chahal.
3. All contemnors except Saleem Khan (contemnor 8), Dilshad Ali (contemnor 15), Basant Singh Saini (contemnor 33) and Amit Chahal (contemnor 41) pleaded guilty of contempt and sentenced one days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-. They were restrained from entering Court premises for a period of one month commencing from 15.05.2015.
4. Contemnor 8, Saleem Khan also pleaded guilty and vide judgment dated 21.04.2015 passed separately, after holding guilty he was sentenced one days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- and debarred from entering Court premises for a period of four months commencing from 13.07.2015 since it was second contempt on his part.
5. Contemnor 41, Amit Chahal was dealt by another judgment dated 21.04.2015 and looking to the fact the he had ceased to practice and was working as Assistant Teacher in primary school, this Court taking a lenient view in the matter accepted his unconditional apology with warning that in future such conduct shall not be repeated and he shall maintain proper discipline and disposed of contempt petition against him accordingly.
6. Thereafter this contempt petition survives only with respect to Contemnors 15 and 33 i.e. Dilshad Ali and Basant Singh Saini. They wanted trial of the matter stating that they have been wrongly implicated. This Court framed charge against aforesaid two Contemnors on 21.04.2015 as under:-
"That both of you namely, Dilshad Ali and Basant Singh Saini, Advocates, along with others on 06.03.2010 resisted the shifting process of Civil Courts to newly constructed complex by burgling into the old Court complex. Your obstruction was foiled by the staff and officers of the justice. The conduct of all of you is a clear obstruction in administration of justice, thus both of you have committed criminal contempt defined under Section 2 (c) read with 10 of Act, 1971, punishable under Section 12 of the Act, 1971?"
7. Both these Contemnors filed counter affidavits, separately, sworn on 22.07.2015. A supplementary counter affidavit was filed by Contemnor 15 Dilshad Ali, sworn on 06.10.2015.
8. An application was also filed on behalf of Contemnor 33, requesting to summon Court officials namely, Mool Chand, Anil Srivastava and Krishna Mohan Srivastava as defence witnesses which was allowed vide Court's order dated 17.11.2015. Thereafter Contemnor 15 moved an application for summoning three defence witnesses namely Israr Ali and Qayum Raza who are also officials of Court of Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar. This application was also allowed vide order dated 17.11.2015. Consequently, Israr Ali, Qayum Raza and Sunil Kumar were examined as DW-1, 2 and 3 on 12.01.2016 and Sri Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Krishna Mohan Srivastava and Mool Chand were examined as DW-4, 5 and 6 respectively on 13.01.2016, 11.05.2016 and 19.07.2016.
9. Learned counsel for parties thereafter addressed Court on merits of the matter and judgment was reserved on 19.12.2016.
10. J.P. Nagar is a new Judgeship, created in view of new district carved out and notified under Section 11 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The district judgeship was created on 23.08.1999 and enunciated functioning in the erstwhile Court of Munsif, Amroha. New Civil Court Complex was constructed consisting of twelve functional Courts and office. Its shifting was to take place from old building to new one. District Judge, in the interest of Court, so that function may not be interrupted, decided to shift Courts in the evening of 06.03.2010 (Saturday) so that shifting may settle on 07.03.2010 (Sunday) and uninterrupted smooth functioning of Court may go on 08.03.2010 and onwards.
11. However, disturbance erupted in the aforesaid shifting and due to obstruction created by Advocates a complaint of their behavior and obstruction was made by Judicial Officers as well as staff to District Judge who made a reference to this Court vide letter dated 12.11.2010. The contents of Reference of District Judge's letter dated 12.04.2010, relevant for our purpose, is reproduced as under:-
"That the lawyers led by Sri Kripal Singh and Sri Chain Sukh Gole, the President and Secretary, District Bar Association, resisted the shifting process by burgling into the old court complex in the night of March 06, 2010. But their obstruction was foiled by the staff and officers of the judgeship. That the staff members have reported this incident against 41 Advocates (vide annexure no. 1 to 8) who are being arrayed as contemnors.
That the conduct of the contemnors is a clear obstruction in the Administration of justice. That, I was reported about the fact at Sessions House and issued instructions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to ensure the proper security of the Court record, staff and Court rooms vide annexure no. 9.
That, the Courts running in the erstwhile court of Munsif Amroha, were situated in a busy market in the heart of the city, that too, in narrow lanes and bye-lanes. The shifting process could not take place during the day time as heavy traffic, truck-loads cannot pass through during working hours. Secondly, that, as District Judge, I had to ensure that Court working should not be disturbed even for a moment...........
That the contemnors were initially opposing and agitating, in a contemptuous manner, the shifting of old makeshift court complex to the newly constructed civil court complex meant for District now they have turned their Guns regarding choice of land allotted to the District Bar Association by the Hon'ble High Court. They want to sit adjacent to the courts and chambers of the officers so as to dominate and influence the judicial process by threatening the judicial officers, civil court staff, litigants and particularly the witnesses in heinous crimes like murder, dowry-death and gang rape. That the land allotted to the District Bar Association by the Hon'ble High Court vide letter no. 5426/Admin. (B-1) Section, dated 11.03.2010 which is annexed, herewith as enclosure no. 11 is much more than the requirement of the District Bar Association. Not only this, it is 55 time more than what was occupied by them. It is a blessing in disguise, that too, over night. I have got constructed a beautiful gallery for approach of the Advocates to the court rooms which is not found anywhere in the whole nation, the photograph of which is being annexed, herewith as annexure no. 12."
12. The contents of letters of Judicial Officers, forwarded by District Judge, alongwith his Reference letter, are also reproduced as under:-
(a) Complaint on behalf of staff of Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar dated 06.03.2010;
"llEeku fuosnu gS fd vkt fnuakd 6-3-10 dks le; 6%30 cts lk;a] ftl le; uohu dpgjh Hkou esa f'kQ~fVax gsrq lkeku ykus dh rS;kj dh tk jgh Fkh] mlh le; vf/koDrkx.k ftuesa [kyhd vgen] unhe [kqljks] euq 'kekZ] d`iky flag] pSulq[k xksys] jktsUnz lSuh] lyhe [kku] jktho xksys] jkekSrkj xqIrk o ujs'kohj flag rFkk vU; 50&60 vf/koDrkx.k vk;s vkSj ge deZpkjhx.k ds fy;s vi'kCn rFkk vieku tud 'kCnksa dk iz;ksx fd;k rFkk ge deZpkjhx.k }kjk f'kQ~fVax gsrq fd;s tk jgs dk;Z esa vojks/k mRiUUu djus dk iz;kl fd;kA""
"With due respect it is submitted that today on 6.3.2010, in the evening at 6:30 pm, when preparations to bring the items, for shifting to new court building, were being made, Advocates Khalique Ahmed, Nadeem Khusro, Manu Sharma, Kripal Singh, Chain Sukh Gole, Rajendra Saini, Salim Khan, Rajiv Gole, Ramautar Gupta, Naresh Vir Singh and 50-60 other advocates came and used abusive and derogatory words for us- the employees and attempted to hinder the work of shifting being done by us."
(b) Complaint by staff of IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), J.P. Nagar;
"fuosnu gS fd fnuakd 6-3-10 dks gekjh vfHkys[kksa dks u;s Hkous esa O;ofLFkr djus ds le; fuEufyf[kr vf/koDrkx.k vk x;s ftuds uke gqde flaag lSuh] eaxr jke lSuh] twfu;j uh'kkr vdje] Hkxr flag lSuh] vj'kn Hkkjrh] pSu lq[k xksys] pkS/kjh ujs'k ohj ubZe vgen o Jh d`iky flag ;kno o vU; 40&45 vf/koDrkx.k vk x;s ftUgksaus vi'kCn dgsA vkSj xkfy;ka Hkh nh ,slh fLFkfr esa dk;Z djuk dfBu gks jgk gSA""
"It is submitted that on 6.3.10, when we were arranging the records in the new building, following advocates namely Hukum Singh Saini, Mangat Ram Saini, Junior Nishat Akran, Bhagat Singh Saini, Arshad Bharti, Chain Sukh Gole, Chaudhary Naresh Vir, Naeem Ahmed, Shri Kripal Singh Yadav and 40-45 other advocates had come who uttered foul words and hurled abuses also, in this condition it is getting tough to work."
(c) Complaint by staff of Civil Judge (Junior Division), J.P. Nagar;
"fuosnu gS fd fnukad 6-3-10 dks ftl le; f'kQ~fVax ds fy;s lkeku dh rS;kjh u;s ifjlj ys tkus dh] dh tk jgh Fkh rHkh mlh le; vf/koDrk Jh dfiy fpdkjk] Jh xkSjo vxzoky] Jh jkekSrkj xqIrk] Jh lquhy ckcw] Jh foosd fo'uksbZ] Jh d`iky flag ;kno] Jh pSu lq[k xksys] Jh bUnziky xksys] Jh euq 'kekZ o blds vfrfjDr 40&50 vf/koDrk vk x;s ftUgksaus ges xUnh&xUnh xkfy;ka nh vkSj vi'kCn dgs vkSj lkeku ykus esa O;o/kku mRiUu fd;kA""
"It is submitted that on 06.03.10, when items were being prepared for shifting to new campus, at the same time Advocate Shri Kapil Chikara, Shri Gaurav Agrawal, Shri Ramautar Gupta, Shri Sunil Babu, Shri Vivek Vishnoi, Shri Kripal Singh Yadav, Shri Chain Sukh Gole, Shri Indrapal Gole, Shri Manu Sharma and besides them 40-50 advocates came who abused us and caused obstruction in bringing the items."
(d) Complaint by staff of IInd Additional Civil Juge (Junior Division), J.P. Nagar;
"fuosnu gS fd fnukad 6-3-10 dks ge deZpkjhx.k u;s U;k;ky; ifjlj ds fy, vfHkys[k o QuhZpj ykus dh rS;kjh dj jgs Fks fouksn lSuh] olUr lSuh] pSulq[k xksys] d`iky flag ;kno] olhe vgen] fnus'k flag rFkk 40&45 vf/koDrk vk x;s ftUgksaus xUnh&xUnh xkfy;ka nh vkSj lkeku ykus esa dfBukbZ iSnk dhA""
"It is submitted that on 6.3.10, we, the employees, were doing preparations to bring records and furniture for new court campus, then Vinod Saini, Vasant Saini, Chain Shukh Gole, Kripal Singh Yadav, Wasim Ahmed, Dinesh Singh and 40-45 advocates came who hurled abuses and caused obstruction in bringing the items."
(e) Complaint by staff of Incharge Officer, Central Copying Section, Civil Court, J.P. Nagar;
"lfou; fuosnu izdkj gS fd tc fnukad 6-3-10 dks tc ge viuk vkfQl dk lkeku iqjkus ifjlj ls u;s ifjlj esa ykus dh rS;kjh dj jgs Fks rHkh dqN vf/koDrkx.k Jh ljkQr gqlSu] fufru caly] gqde flag lSuh] nyir flag jk.kk] pSu lq[k xksys] d`iky flag ;kno] twfu;j uh'kkr vdje ] jkt pkS/kjh] euq 'kekZ] vj'kn Hkkjrh] [kyhd vgen o blds vfrfjDr cgqr ls odhy vk x;s ftUgksaus deZpkjhx.k dks pksj dgk vkSj xUnh&2 xkfy;k nh ftlls dk;Z esa cgqr dfBukbZ mRiUu gqbZA""
"With due respect it is submitted that on 6.3.10 when we were doing preparation to shift the items of our office from old campus to new campus, then Advocates Shri Sarafat Hussain, Nitin Bansal, Hukm Singh Saini, Dalpat Singh Rana, Chain Sukh Gole, Kripal Singh Yadav, Junior Neeshat Akram, Raj Chaudhari, Manu Sharma, Arshad Bharti, Khalique Ahmed and besides them many advocates came who termed the employees as thieves and hurled abuses which caused grave hardship in work."
(f) Complaint by staff of Civil Judge (Senior Division), J.P. Nagar;
"llEeku fuosnu gS fd fnuakd 6-3-10 dks lk;a 6%00 cts tc U;kf;d deZpkjhx.k iqjkus U;k;ky; ifjlj dk QuhZpj i=koyh vkfn dk lkeku okguksa esa ykn jgs Fks] ml le; fuEufyf[kr vf/koDrkx.k xkyh xykSt djrs gq, U;k;ky; ifjlj esa ?kql vk;s vksj dgus yxs fd lkyksa U;kf;d deZpkjhx.kksa pksjksa dh rjg lkeku jkr esa dgkW ys tk jgs gks] ge yksxksa us dgk fd ekuuh; tuin U;k;k/kh'k egksn; ds ekSf[kd vkns'kkuqlkj mDr QuhZpj ,oa i=kofy;ka uo fufeZr U;k;ky; ifjlj tks;k ekxZ ¼jk;iqj½ dks ys tk jgsa gSaA bl ij vf/koDrkx.k U;kf;d deZpkjh x.kksa dks xkyh xykSt djrs gq, rFkk /kedh nsrs gq, pys x;sA fuEu fyf[kr vf/koDrkx.kksa ds uke& 1-Jh jktsUnz lSuh ,M0 2-** jktho xksys ,M0 3-** pSu lq[k xksys ,M0 4-** jkevorkj xqIrk ,M0 5-** [kyhd vgen ,M0 6-** jkf'kn fe;ka ,M0 7-** pkS/kjh ujs'k ohj flag ,M0 8-** d`iky flag ;kno ,M0 buds vfrfjDr 40&50 vf/koDrk vkSj Hkh FksA""
"With due respect it is submitted that on 6.3.10, at 6 o'clock in the evening, when court employees were loading the furniture, files etc of old court campus into the vehicles, that time, following advocates barged into the court campus while hurling abuses and began scolding abusively that where are you, the court employees, carrying away the items in the night like thieves. We said that we are carrying the said furniture and files to the newly built court campus, Joya Road (Raipur) as per the verbal orders of the Learned District Judge.
On this, the advocates went off abusing and threatening the court employees.
Following are the names of the advocates-
1. Shri Rajendra Saini, Advocate
2. Shri Rajiv Gole, Advocate
3. Shri Chain Sukh Gole, Advocate
4. Shri Ram Avtar Gupta, Advocate
5. Shri Khalique Ahmed, Advocate
6. Shri Rashid Miyan, Advocate
7. Shri Chaudhary Naresh Vir Singh, Advocate
8. Shri Kripal Singh Yadav, Advocate Besides, there were 40-50 more advocates."
(g) Complaint by staff of Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar;
"fuosnu gS fd fnukad 06-03-2010 dks dh 'kke dks ftl le; iqjkus ifjlj ls u;s ifjlj esa vfHkys[k tkus dh rS;kjh dh tk jgh Fkh mlh le; fuEufyf[kr vf/koDrkx.k vk x;s 1-bUnziky xksys 2-Jh fny'kkn vgen 3-Jh vj'kn Hkkjrh 4-[kyhd vgen 5- Jh lkftn jmQ 6- Jh pSulq[k xksys 7-Jh d`iky flag ;kno 8-Jh fouksn dqekj lSuh blds vfrfjDr 40&45 vf/koDrkx.k Hkh vk x;s ftUgksaus lHkh fyfidksa dks cqjk Hkyk dgk vkSj dk;Z esa O;o/kku mRiUu fd;kA""
"It is submitted that in the evening of 06.03.2010, when preparation to shift the records from old campus to new campus were being made, at the same time following advocates had come :-
1. Indrapal Gole
2. Shri Dilshad Ahmed
3. Shri Arshad Bharti
4. Khalique Ahmed
5. Shri Sajid Rauf
6. Shri Chainsukh Gole
7. Shri Kripal Singh Yadav
8. Shri Vinod Kumar Saini Besides them, 40-50 more advocates also arrived who abused all the clerks and caused hindrance in the work."
(h) Complaint by staff of Ist Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), J.P. Nagar;
"lfou; fuosnu gS fd ge deZpkjhx.k ubZ dpgjh esa lkeku fnukad 6-3-10 dks tc yk jgs Fks rc iqjkuh dpgjh ifjlj esa fuEufyf[kr vf/koDrk vk x;sA Jh ------------- Jh pSulq[k xksys] losZ'k 'kekZ] olUr flag lSuh vkSj blds vfrfjDr 40&45 vf/koDrk vk x;sA ftUgksaus deZpkfj;ksa dks xkfy;ka nh ftlls dk;Z djus esa dfBukbZ;ksa dk lkeuk gqvkA""
"It is submitted that when we, the employees, were bringing the items to new court on 6.3.10, then following advocates came into the old court campus. Shri ............. Shri Chain Sukh Gole, Sarvesh Sharma, Vasant Singh Saini and besides them 40-45 advocates came who abused the employees which caused hardships in work."
(i) Complaint by staff of District Judge, J.P. Nagar;
"fuosnu gS fd vkt fnuakd 06-03-2010 dks eqalQh U;k;ky; ds ifjlj esa dk;Zjr lHkh deZpkjhx.k dh vksj ls bl vk[;k ds izkFkZuk iz= izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa fd muds }kjk ljdkjh vfHkys[kksa dks uo fufeZr Hkou esa f'kQ~V djus gsrq rS;kjh djrs le; cgqr ls vf/koDrkx.k U;k;ky; ifjlj esa vk x;s gS xUnh xUnh xkfy;ka ns jgs gSA vieku tud 'kCn deZpkfj;ksa dks dg jgs gSaA ,slh fo"ke ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vfHkys[kksa dk uo fufeZr Hkou rd ys tkuk cgqr dfBu gks jgk gSA"
"It is submitted that today, on 06.03.2010, applications by all the employees of the Munsif Court campus have been submitted wherein it has been reported that at the time when they were doing preparations for shifting Government records to the newly built building, many advocates, hurling abuses, have come into the court campus. They are uttering derogatory language for the employees. In such adverse conditions, it has become very tough to carry the records to newly built building." (English translation by Court)
13. Record also shows that District Judge after receiving complaint from the staff, in order to enable shifting of record, furniture etc. passed following order on 06.03.2010 with a direction to Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar;
"Please act swiftly and do needful, not personally but through police and Executive Magistrate."
14. Chowkidar of Court also lodged First Information Report being Case Crime no. 340 of 2010 under Sections 147, 504, 353 and 447 IPC registered at Police Station, Amroha, District J.P. Nagar on 07.03.2010 at 12.00 in the noon regarding the incident which took place on 07.03.2010 at about 22.50 and the contents of said First Information Report reads as under:-
"lsok eas Fkkuk/;{k Fkkuk vejksgk nsgkr egksn;] lfou; fuosnu gS fd ekuuh; ftyk tt lkgc ds vkns'k ij iqjkuh dpgjh ls ubZ dpgjh es U;k;ky; dk lkeku f'k¶V fd;k x;k FkkA eS vkt fnukad 7-3-10 dks pkSdhnkjh dh M~;wVh ij Fkk vkSj U;k;ky; ds deZpkjh U;k;ky;ksa esa i=kofy;ksa dks rFkk vU; jftLVjksa o dkxtkr dks dk;kZy; esa j[k jgs Fks rHkh le; djhc 12 cts 100 odhy ftues d`iky flag] pSulq[k xksys] th'kku vgen] vouh'k 'kj.k caly] vj'kn gqlSu Hkkjrh] 'kSysUnz 'kekZ] v'kksd dqekj diwj] ,l0ih0 flag o eksgEen vyh udoh 'kkfey FksA xkyh xykSt djrs gq, vk, rFkk fodkl Hkou dh rjQ u;s U;k;ky; Hkou ds nksuks yksgs ds xsVkas ds rkyksa rksM Mkys rFkk fodkl Hkou dh rjQ fLFkr ,Q0Vh0lh0 dksVksZ esa i=koyh rFkk vU; ljdkjh fjdkMZ ftls deZpkjh j[k jgs FksA dks Uk"V djus dk iz;kl fd;k ftls ogka ij dke dj jgs deZpkfj;ksa us cMh eqf'dy ls cpk;kA bu odhyksa us ttksa ds deZpkfj;ksa ds }kjk fd;s tk jgs ljdkjh dk;Z esa ck/kk igqapk;h rFkk ,slk ekgksy cuk fn;k ftlls deZpkjh b/kj m/kj Hkkxus yxsA rFkk fdlh deZpkjh }kjk lh0ts0,e0 lkgc dks lwpuk nh rc ekSds ij igys ls ekStwn rFkk ckn esa igqaph iqfyl us fLFkfr laHkkyhA ekSds ij ekStwn odhyksa ds lkeus vkus ij igpku ldrk gwaA fjiksVZ fy[k dj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djasA izkFkhZA Sd vt; flag] vt; flag pkSdhnkj ts0ih0uxjA""
"To the SHO, Police Station Amroha Dehat. Sir, It is most humbly submitted that the items of the court had been shifted from the old court to the new court on the orders of the Learned District Judge. Today, on 07.03.2010, I was on the duty of watchman and the employees of the court were putting the files in the court rooms and other documents and registers in the office, at the same time at around 12 o'clock, 100 counsels including Kripal Singh, Chain Sukh Gole, Jishan Ahmad, Avnish Sharan Bansal, Arshad Husain Bharti, Shailendra Sharma, Ashok Kumar Kapoor, S. P. Singh and Mohammad Ali Naqvi came hurling abuses and broke the lock of both the iron gates of the New Court Building towards Vikas Bhawan and tried to destroy the files and other Government records that employees were putting in the FTC courts situated on the side of Vikas Bhawan, which were saved with great difficulty by the employees working there. These advocates obstructed the official work being performed by the employees of the judges and created such an environment that ruckus got created among the employees. Some employee gave information to the CJM then the police force already present on the spot and the police force which arrived later on controlled the situation. I can identify the advocates present on the spot on seeing them. Kindly register the report and take legal action. Applicant- sd/- Ajai Singh, Ajai Singh Watchman, J. P. Nagar." (English translation by Court)
15. The aforesaid Reference was placed before Committee constituted by Chief Justice for examining such matters and Committee consisted of Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J on 25.11.2010 recommended criminal contempt proceedings. Chief Justice directed to place Reference before appropriate Bench vide order dated 07.12.2010. Consequently notices were issued by a Division Bench consisted of Hon'ble Amar Saran and N.A. Moonis, JJ. to Contemnors on 13.01.2011 as to why they may not be punished under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1971") in view of allegations contained in Reference.
16. In the counter affidavit filed by Contemnor 33, giving history of creation of judgeship, it is stated that a new District, J.P. Nagar, was notified with its Headquarter at Amroha in 1997. Thereafter, notification for establishment of district judgeship at Amroha was also issued and old building of Women's Hospital at Amroha was utilized for opening of district judgeship, since earlier Munsif Court was running in this building for the last 100 years. For construction of new Court building, plan was sanctioned by this Court in 2003. Accommodation for litigant and Advocates was also earmarked adjacent to Court building within the land acquired, in the approved plan.
17. District Judge made a recommendation that Advocates Chambers just adjacent to Court building may create obstruction in Court functioning and proposed a site for Advocates Chambers at the place which was assigned earlier for staff cycle stand which was outside Court campus. This proposal was accepted by Court. On 06.03.2010 though construction of new building was not complete inasmuch as neither lockup nor record rooms were constructed still District Judge directed Court Staff and Presiding Officers to shift entire record etc. to new Court building in the evening. Consequently, Court Staff shifted entire record in trunk loads, entire night, in the presence of local police. At the time of shifting, not even a single lawyer was present since no one knew about shifting. Entire shifting to new complex was done in a most secretive and guarded way. There was no untoward incident reported to police on that night nor a single general diary entry was entered against any lawyer police record in respect of any kind of hindrance. The incident was reported at 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. but Contemnor 33 was not present and had no knowledge of shifting. Para 8 of counter affidavit of Contemnor 33 reads as under:-
"That it is respectfully submitted that in the reference against the present respondent no. 33 the incident shown was on 06.03.2010 at 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and on that day it is standing and Court was not proceed at 6.00 p.m. when respondent no. 33 was not present and had no knowledge, whatsoever of the aforesaid shifting."
18. A First Information Report was lodged by Chowkidar, Ajay Singh on 07.03.2010 against nine Advocates on the order of District Judge that these Advocates created interference in shifting of records. In First Information Report there is no allegation against Contemnor 33. Some other contempt References were made against District Officials who were discharged since they tendered unconditional apology before Court vide order dated 28.07.2011. Advocates came to know about shifting of Court in new building through public and newspapers only on 07.03.2010. Further defence taken by Contemnor 33 contained in paras 12 to 22 of counter affidavit reads as under:-
"12. That it is respectfully stated that there was neither any notification nor any public notice to the effect of shifting of Court was aware of any kind of shifting of the Court which was unilaterally and abruptly decided by the District Judge and there was no question of gathering of lawyers/ Advocates, who had left for their residences after last hours in the buildings from house of the deponent is 35km away and new building is just 28 km and there is no question of any plausible occasion or reason to protest or interference in the shifting to New Court complex.
A true/ photo copy of Ration Card (Address) and Aadhar Card of the deponent is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A-3 to this affidavit.
13. That it is respectfully submitted that Section 3(C) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 defines the word "Criminal contempt" it is stated that the Learned District Judge in his referred dated 12.04.2010 has attributed to the deponent only that he has present on 06.03.2010 and he was interfere and using abuse language to the Staff but in this Act unless the context otherwise, requires:
Definition 2(1) Criminal Contempt means the publication (whether by words. Specter in written or by signature or by visible representation or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which.
(i) Scandalizes or trends to Scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court.
(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 abstracts or trends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner.
14. That it is respectfully stated that the Learned District Judge's reference dated 12.04.2010 issued a shows cause notice and contempt proceeding also initiating against Contempt nor No. 41 which was one Amit Singh Chalel was discharge by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 21.04.2015 and present contemnor who given apology before the Hon'ble Court.
A true/ photo copy of order dated 21.04.2015 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit.
15. That it is respectfully submitted that contents of charge framed against the deponent are absolutely wrong and hence denied and it is stated that at the time of incident the deponent was not present in old building and neither the deponent interfered nor used abusive language to the staff when records were Court shifted.
16. That this Hon'ble High Court has issued a Letter No. 5426 add in (B-1) Section dated 11.03.2010 to the Learned District Judge, Joytiba Phule Nagar and regarding the allotment land of Bar Association Janpad Joytiba Phule Nagar for construction of Bar Rooms, Bar Library and Chambers for the Lawyer in the newly created District Joytiba Phule Nagar but the Learned District Judge not compliance of the order of this Hon'ble High Court.
A true/ photo copy of order dated 11.03.2010 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.-5 to this affidavit.
17. That it is respectfully stated that on 13.03.2010 the Commissioner Moradabad Mandal, Moradabad who was inspection of new Court by the order of Principal Home, U.P State Government and filed his report and classified that the Library Hall, Bar Room, Chambers of Advocate will be established on the basis of Eastern Boundary Wall and layout 2003 and where this Hon'ble Court also directed to Learned District Judge for proceed.
18. That it is respectfully submitted that on the day of the incident dated 06.03.2010 the present contemnor was not present and his Mobile No. 9837184831 and in Case No. 533 of 2009 (State Versus Ramesh Case No. of 2009, State Versus Nandram, Case No. 536 of 2009, State Versus Karan Singh & Case No. 537 of 209 State Versus Kunwar Sain Under Section 3 Gunda Act at Police Station Rajabpur is pending before the court where the present contemnor who appeared before the Police Station Rajjabpur and the next date was fixed on 12.03.2010.
A true/ photo copy of Order-sheet and Vakalatnama is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.6 to this affidavit.
19. That it is respectfully stated that the present contemnor was appointed as A.D.G.C (Criminal) on 09.08.2011 and he is still continuing and doing his job and before courts concerned and the concerned court has been pleased to issue a Character Certificate in his favour.
A true/ photo copy of order dated 09.08.2011 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.7 to this affidavit.
20. That it is respectfully stated that the deponent was acquitted by the Bar Council of U.P by the order dated 24.02.2011.
A true/ photo copy of order dated 24.02.2011 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.8 to this affidavit.
21. That it is respectfully stated that there are several Contempt Criminal Case was initiating against the several Advocate and Administration of Jyotiba Phule Nagar where this Hon'ble Court was discharge the Administration Officer in Contempt Criminal Case No. 11 of 2010 and in 29/10 one Contemnor No. 41 was discharge by this Hon'ble Court so in light of this judgment this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to discharge the notice of Contempt.
22. That the allegations contained in the reference sent by the District Judge, J.P Nagar prima-facie do not fall within the definition Criminal Contempt of Court as required under section 15(3) of the Contempt of court Act read with Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXXXV-E of Allahabad High Court Rules since the allegations in the reference do not ever specify the contempt "of which" and" of whom" has been committed."
19. Similarly Contemnor 15, in a separate counter affidavit has pleaded similar facts and the defence is that he was not present on 06.03.2010 and Reference made and proceedings initiated against him, therefore, are not correct.
20. A more detailed reply has been given by Contemnor 15, Dilshad Ali by means of supplementary affidavit sworn on 06.10.2015. He has said that District Judge, while getting record shifted got a video film prepared but the same has not been made part of Reference. The presence of Contemnor 15 may be got verified from the said CD. Contemnor 15 was enrolled in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh vide no. 3288/98 dated 30.04.1998 and joined legal practice under Senior Counsel P.K. Jain in district Moradabad. He is practicing at Amroha since 23.08.1999. He maintains high respect for judiciary and cannot create obstruction in judicial or official function of Court.
21. J.P. Nagar came into existence on 07.04.1997. Earlier it was part of district Moradabad of 100 years old. Munsif Court was running in four rooms situated in middle of city. District judgeship was inaugurated on 23.10.1999 by the then Chief Justice, N.K. Mitra, accompanied by Justice Markandey Katju (as his lordship then was) and Hon'ble S.R. Alam,J (the then Administrative Judge) of J.P. Nagar. Contemnor 15, being resident of Amroha was interested to practice at Amroha itself. Due to lack of space, Advocates were at difficulty to find place for their sitting. The then Administrative Judge, Hon'ble R.H. Zaidi,J. visited district judgeship on 20.06.2001 and got old building of Rukmani Trust which was old Women's Hospital repaired and managed three rooms from Nagar Palika. Subsequently 105 hectares land was acquired by State Government on 11.02.2002 for new building of district judgeship and other administrative offices. As per lay out plan, proposed land meant for Advocate Chambers was allocated and foundation stone was laid on 14.11.2003. District Judge, Saiduzzama Siddiqui, took charge on 08.04.1999 and got the foundation stone removed. He made a new proposal for Advocates Chambers to this Court. Contemnor 15 is resident of village Salamatpur, Police Station, Didauli, which is about 14 kms. from Old Fort compound. Since he started practice at Amroha on 24.08.1999, he shifted to a nearby area i.e. Kasba Joya at Delhi Highway in 1997 and thereupon distance was reduced by 10 kms. He has got a house constructed at Kachtheri Road, Joya and residing there since 2003. He was anxiously waiting for construction of new building and shifting thereof since at the old building problem of water logging in rainy season and poor condition of road used to create great difficulty in movement of Advocates and others. Contemnor's new home is near Court building. On 06.03.2010, in the evening, Contemnor had gone to Chandausi for bringing his wife who had gone to attend her brothers marriage, solemnized on 24.02.2010. Contemnor took her wife from Chandausi to Delhi and in the morning came back from Delhi. The relations of District Judge and President, Bar Association were cordial. Contemnor 15, moved a bail application on 06.03.2010 of Pratap son of Sant Ram being Case Crime no. 125 of 2009 under Sections 302, 120-B, 364, 201, 147 IPC, P.S. Hasanpur and after taking a date went to his house. This may be verified from call details of Contemnors Mobile no. 9837293769. Courts were closed at 5 p.m. on 06.03.2010. No Advocate was aware about shifting of record etc. from old Court building to new building. It was not known even to Media or general public. Contemnor 15 came to know about shifting in the morning through newspapers. Press release was issued by Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 08.03.2010 which was published in the newspaper on 09.03.2010. Reference letter dated 12.06.2010 is delayed by authority by 36 days and contain concocted story. As per allegations, eight Adcocates came at the site when shifting was taking place namely Indrapal Gole, Dilshad Ahmad, Arshad Bharti, Khaleek Ahmad, Sajid Rauf, Chainsukh Gole, Kripal Singh Yadav and Vinod Kumar Saini. These Advocates did not create obstruction nor abuse anybody. About other forty Advocates no details have been given. Contemnor 15 was not there at all. In what manner Contemnor abused, no details have been given. Bar Council had already rejected complaint initiated against forty Advocates under Section 35 of Advocates Act by order dated 24.02.2011. Contempt notice was issued in the name of "Dilshad Ahmad" while Contemnor is "Dilshad Ali" and this was pointed out on 21.04.2015 before this Court. He was not present when the alleged incident is said to have occurred. Charge has been framed against Contemnor without any show cause notice. Complaint was made by staff of Judicial Officer but no recommendation was made by Judicial Officer namely Judicial Magistrate. Letters have been managed inasmuch as staff's signature have been obtained without informing them about contents. Staff of Session Court refused to sign and no such complaint has been made by them. On 08.03.2010 no Advocate was allowed to enter Court premises. Reference letter is imaginary and false. The land proposed by State Government and approved by this Court subsequently was outside Court premises and neither fit nor sufficient to accommodate all Advocates. Contemnor has always being opposing strikes by Advocates and this can be verified from record of Bar Association. The allegations constitute offence in IPC, in respect whereto no contempt proceedings can be initiated in view of Section 10 of Act 1971. In FIR nine Advocates are named but 41 Contemnors to whom notice was issued included only some of these Advocates. No reason has been given by District Judge in the Reference for exclusion of these two Advocates. After framing charge requisite documents were not supplied to Contemnor. The allegations relates to incident which took place after Court proceedings and therefore, it does not come within the ambit of definition of "criminal contempt", since Courts were not functioning at that time. Mere shifting of record by Clerks from old building to new building, if obstructed, cannot constitute "criminal contempt". At the best allegations constitute an offence under IPC and not a "criminal contempt". Contemnor once made complaint of Deo Prakash, Court Reader in Judicial Magistrate's Court to Chief Judicial Magistrate and for that reason his name has been included. Contemnor has always been cooperating in Court's functioning and for that reason once he was expelled by Bar Association. Contemnor moved an application on 05.04.2011 for allotment of Chamber as per rules. District Officers have been discharged in contempt proceedings and same treatment should be extended to Contemnor 15 also.
22. Therefore, basic defence taken by both Contemnors is that they were not present on 06.03.2010 when incident in the evening is alleged to have taken place.
23. DW-1, Ishrar Ali has proved his application submitted to District Judge on 06.03.2010 which is Annexure 7 to Reference letter. He stated that 40-45 people came and created obstruction. Eight names have been mentioned in the application (Annexure 7) to Reference letter and name of Dilshad Ahmad is at serial no. 2 therein. He specifically said that he knows Contemnor 15 whose name is "Dilshad Ali" and he alongwith other Advocates was present. In cross examination he reiterated the contents of para 7 and specifically said:-
"fjQ~jsUl ds ,usDtj ua0 7 esa tks vkB uke vf/koDrkvksa ds fy[ksa gS os 40&50 vf/koDrkvksa ds lkFk vk, Fks vkSj bu lHkh vf/koDrkvkssa us dk;Z eas O;o/kku Mkyk FkkA""
Eight advocates, whose names are written in the Annexure No. 7 to the reference, had come along with 40-50 advocates and all of these advocates had obstructed the work." (English translation by Court)
24. Qayum Raza, DW-2 has also confirmed obstruction created by Advocates while shifting of record etc. on 06.03.2010 in the evening stating that 7-8 Advocates names have been mentioned in the complaint which included name of Dilshad Ahmad. Advocates whose names are mentioned were present which included one Kripal Singh Yadav. He specifically said that Contemnor was present and he identified him. His statement in examination-in-chief reads as under:-
"tks dUVseuj mifLFkr gSa mudks eSa igpkukr gWw bUgha dk uke eSaus fy[kok;k FkkA""
I know the contemnors who are present, I had got written their names." (emphasis added) (English translation by Court)
25. He also proved Annexure 7 and stated that said letter was got typed by Court Reader and witnesses signed the same after reading it.
26. Sunil Kumar, DW-3, was examined in detail in examination-in-chief and it is a long examination. Relevant extract thereof reads as under:-
"gedks tks vIyhds'ku geus nh mldh tkudkjh gesa FkhA ;g i= is'kdkj lkgc us fy[kk Fkk vkSj geus nLr[kr fd;k FkkA lkeku yknus ds ckn iqfyl QkslZ vkbZ FkhA tgkW ij lkekuk yknk Fkk ogkW ij ykbV FkhA tc ge lkeku ykn jgs Fks rc dqN vf/koDrk ogkW vk;s 'kke dk le; Fkk ogkW ij gaxkek gksus yxk og lkeu jksdus yxs mlds QkslZ vk xbZA tt lkgc ekSf[kd vkns'k fn;k Fkk vkSj igys vk;s Fks vkSj fQj pys x;s Fks vkSj ckn esa vk;s FksA ogkW ls'ku dksVZ Fkk gh ughaA mudk lkeku gekjs ckn x;k FkkA mudk dkQh lkeku Fkk vxys fnu x;k gqvk FkkA dUVseuj ds ckjs esa dgk fd ;g tks;k esa jgrs tks yxHkx 12&13 fe0eh0 nwj gSA ogkW dkQh HkhM+ Fkh vkSj dkQh vf/koDrk yksx ekStwn FksA vf/koDrk x.k xsV ds ikl [kM+s Fks tgkW va/ksyk gks jgk Fkk ogh ls vf/koDrk xkyh xykSt dj jgs FksA v/;{k th vkSj lsdszVªh nksuksa vkxs FksA HkhM+ dkQh Fkh vkSj ogkW vki yksx Hkh FksA dUVseuj us xokg ls dgk fd vki eq>s O;fDrxr :i ls tkurs gS esjs ifjokj dks tkurs gS esjh iRuh dh e`R;q gks x;h gS cPps gSa vkSj eSa vkrk tkrk ugha gwW blds ckn mlus xokg ls iwNk fd vkius eq>s HkhM+ esa ugha ns[kk FkkA (xokg us ml ij lh/kk dksbZ tokc ugha fn;k cfYd cgqr fopkj fd;k eqWg cuk;k vkSj mRrj nsus esa vnkyr dks lkQ irk yxk fd og cgqr dfBukbZ eglwl dj jgk FkkA) ;g lgh gS fd 7 rkjh[kksa dks odhyksa us rkys rksM+s vkSj 8 rkjh[k dks est iyV nhA tc ogkW >xM+k gqvk Fkk rc gels vxys fnu lqcg fMfLVªDV tt lkgc us tokc ekxk Fkk vkSj ge yksxksa us fy[k dj fn;k FkkA is'kdkj lkgc us Vkbi djk;k Fkk vkSj geus lkbu fd;k Fkk ckdh ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds ckjs esa eq>sa ugh ekyqeA ?kVuk 6 rkjh[k dh 'kke dh Fkh vkSj vthZ lqcg 8 rkjh[k dks nh FkhA eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS fd dksbZ ohfM;ksa cuh Fkh ;k ughaA eq>s 6 rkjh[k dh fdlh ohfM;ks dh tkudkjh ugha FkhA eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd tc LVªkbd py jgha Fkh rc dUVseuj ckgj nqdku ds ikl cSBs FksA eq>s bldh Hkh dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gS fd tks Vhu 'ksM cuok;k Fkk mleas flQZ dUVseuj cSBs Fks vkSj dksbZ vU; vf/koDrk ugha cSBs FksA d`iky flag v/;{k ds HkkbZ gekjs ;gkW deZpkjh gSaA dUVseuj dk uke fny'kku vyh gS fny'kkn vgen ugha gSA eq>s bl ckr dh dksbZ tkudkjh ugh gS fd dUVseuj us tc ls eSa ukSdjh eas vk;k gwW fdlh ds lkFk dksbZ xkyh&xykSt ;k ekjihV dh gS ;k ughaA esjs lkFk dksbZ vlH; O;ogkj ugha fd;kA""
"We had knowledge about the application that we had given to. The Reader had written this letter and I had put my signature. Police force had arrived after the items were loaded. There was light at the place where (we) had loaded the items. Few advocates came there when we were loading the items. It was evening. It turned chaotic. They started obstructing the loading, thereafter the force arrived there. Learned Judge had given the verbal order. He had come before, then left and came afterwards. No Sessions Court was there. There items had gone after us. Their items were much, it had gone on the next day. Regarding the contemnor, (he) stated that the contemnor lives in Joya which is at a distance of around 12-13 km. Huge crowd was there and many advocates were present. Advocates were standing near the gate where it was getting dark, advocates were hurling abuses from there itself. Both, the President and the Secretary, were in the front. The crowd was quite big and you people were also there. The contemnor told the witness that he (witness) knows him and his family personally, his wife has died and he has kids and that he goes nowhere then he asked that witness had not seen him in the crowd. Witness didn't give any straight answer of that instead gave it a long thought and made grimace, the court clearly understood that he is facing much difficulty in giving answer. It is right that on 7th advocates broke the locks and on 8th they overturned the table. On the day following the clash, the District Judge had demanded the reply from us and we had submitted the written reply. The Reader had got it typed and we had signed, I don't know about other Presiding Officers. The Incident had taken place in the evening of 6th and the application had been given in the morning of 8th. I don't know that whether any video was made or not. I don't had any knowledge about any video of 6th. I don't have knowledge of the fact that when strike was going on, the contemnors were sitting outside near the shop. I don't have any knowledge even of this fact that only the contemnors and no other advocate was sitting in the tin shed that was got made. Brother of the President Kripal Singh is an employee at our place. Name of the contemnor is Dilshan Ali and not Dilshad Ahmad. I don't have any knowledge of the fact that as to whether contemnor has done any altercation or abused any one since I have joined my service. (He) didn't behave in derogatory manner with me." (English translation by Court)
27. DW-4, Anil Kumar also verified the incident and said as under:-
"eSa Qjojh 2005 esa fu;qDr gqvk FkkA orZeku esa eSa izFke vij tuin U;k;ky; esa fyfid ds in ij dk;Zjr gwWWA ;g ?Vuk fnukad 6-3-2010 dks 'kke dks yxHkx lk<+s lkr&vkB cts dh gSA ml fnu U;k;ky; [kqyk gqvk FkkA yxHkx lHkh vf/koDrk 5 cts rd U;k;ky; ls tk pqds FksA ftl ifjlj esa ?kVuk gqbZ mlesa vU; ljdkjh foHkkx Hkh gS vkSj muds ifjokj Hkh jgrs gSaA ubZ dpsgjh tks;k vejksgk ekxZ ij gSA mlh ekxZ ij igys dysDVªsV f'kQ~V gqbZ FkhA eq>s ;g tkudkjh ugha gS fd bl ifjlj ds dqN vf/koDrk dysDVªsV Hkh tkrs FksA izkFkZuk i= ftl ij esjs gLrk{kj gSa og is'kdkj lkgc fy[kdj yk;s FksA ml ij vnZyh ds gLrk{kj gSa ;k ugha eSa ugha dg ldrkA tks i= is'kdkj us fy[kk Fkk mlh ij eSaus gLrk{kj fd;s vyx ls fy[kdj ugha fn;k FkkA eq>s /;ku ugha gS fd izkFkZuk i= ij ?kVuk dk le; vafdr gS vFkok ughaA vusDpj 4 jsQjsUl dks ns[kdj dgk fd ;gh izkFkZuk i= gS ftl ij eSaus esa ftl ij eSaus gLrk{kj fd;s FksA ml fnu 'kke dks tt lkgc ekSf[kd vkns'k fn;k Fkk vkt dpsgjh u;s Hkou esa f'kQ~V gksuh gS vkSj ge yksx viuh Qkbysa vkSj vyekfj;kW xkM+h esa ykn pqds Fks rHkh 40&50 vf/koDrk yksx vk x;s vkSj xkyh nsrs gq;s dgus yxs fd rqe yksx pksjh ls f'kQ~V dj jgs gks vkSj ckdh 'kksj gksus yxk mlh le; QkslZ vk xbZ vkSj ge yksx QkslZ ds lkFk u;s ifjlj esa pys x;sA clUr flag dUVseuj ua0 33 us esjs lkFk dksbZ cqjk orkZo ugha fd;k Fkk vU; deZpkfj;ksa ds ckjs esa eSa ugha crk ldrk gwWA dqN vf/koDrk ;wuhQkeZ esa Fks dqN vU; izdkj ds diM+s igus FksA""
"I had been appointed in February, 2005. At present I am posted in the First Additional District Court as a clerk. This incident has taken place on 06.03.2010 at around 7:30- 8:00 pm. That day, the court was open. Almost all the advocates had left the Court by 5:00 pm. There are other government departments and their families also live in the campus in which the incident took place. New Civil Court is on Joya-Amroha road. Earlier the Collectorate had shifted on the same road. I don't have knowledge of the fact that few advocates of this campus used to visit the Collectorate also. The application which bears my signature had been brought by the Reader. I can't say that whether it bears the signature of the Orderly or not. I had put signature on the same letter that had been written by the Reader ; (I) had not submitted any separate letter. I don't remember that as to whether the time of incident is mentioned in the application. Stated after perusing annexure No. 4 to the Reference that it is the same application on which he had put his signature. That day, Learned Judge had given verbal order that Court had to be shifted that day and we had already loaded our files and almirahs in the vehicle, at the same time 40-50 advocates came and started saying abusively that you are shifting secretly, it became noisy, at the same time the force arrived and we people went to the New Campus along with the force. Contemnor No. 33 Basant Singh had not behaved derogatorily with me, I can't say regarding other employees. Some advocates were in the uniform and others were clad in different dresses. (English translation by Court)
28. In cross examination he has said as under:-
"vf/koDrkvksa us lkewfgd :i ls xkyh oxSjg nh Fkh fo'ks"k :i ls esjs lkFk nqO;Zogkj ugha fd;k FkkA""
Advocates had abused collectively, didn't behave derogatorily specially with me." (English translation by Court)
29. DW-5 Krishna Mohan Srivatava also verified the incident and has said as under:-
"f'kQ~fVax ds le; 30&40 vf/koDrk vk;s vkSj fojks/k Lo:i mu okguksa dks iyV fn;k ftuesa i=kofy;ka ;k fjdMZ~l f'kQ~V gks jgs FksA vHknz O;ogkj fd;k lwpuk ij iqfyl vkbZA eSa ml le; dk;kZy; ds vUnj Fkk vkSj dkSu ls vf/koDrk fdldks&2 xkyh ns jgs Fks eSaus vius dkuksa ls lquk ysfdu vkokt Li"V ugha lquhA mDr ?kVuk dh fyf[kr f'kdk;r eSa o vU; deZpkjhx.k us rRdkyhu tuin U;k;k/kh'k dks dhA tuin U;k;k/kh'k dks f'kdk;r f'kQ~fVax ds nks fnu ckn dh Fkh rkjh[k ;kn ugha gSA eq>ls fdlh us f'kdk;r djus ds fy, ugha dgk eSaus Lo;a ?kVuk dh f'kdk;r dhA nks fnu i=kofy;kW ;Fkksfpr :i ls j[kus esa le; yxk mlds ckn f'kdk;r dhA tuin U;k;k/kh'k dks ?kVuk dh lwpuk fcuk fdlh vU; ls jk; elojs ls dh xbZ FkhA tuin U;k;k/kh'k dks tks f'kdk;r eSaus dh Fkh og gkbdksVZ i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA rFkk jsQjsUl ysVj dk layXu 4 gS ;g esjs ys[k o gLrk{kj esa gSA eSus viuh f'kdk;r esa vf/koDrk fouksn lSuh] clUr lSuh] pSu lq[k xksys] d`iky flag ;kno] olhe vgen] fnus'k flag dks xUnh&2 xkfy;kW nsus okys vf/koDrkvksa ds :i esa vU; 40&45 vf/koDrkvksa ds lkFk ukfer fd;k gSA""
"30-40 Advocates came at the time of the shifting and protestingly they overturned those vehicles in which files and records were getting shifted. (They) behaved derogatorily, the police arrived on information. That time I was inside the office, heard that which advocate was abusing whom, but didn't heard the voice clearly. I and other employees gave written complaint of the said incident to the then District Judge. (We) had complaint the District Judge two days after the incident, (I) don't remember the date. Nobody had told me to lodge the complaint, I myself lodged the complaint of the incident. It took two days in properly placing the files, thereafter I made the complaint. (I) gave the information of the incident to the District Judge without consultation of anyone. The complaint that I had given to the District Judge is present in the High Court file and is annexure 4 to the reference letter, it is in my handwriting and under my signature. In my complaint, I had named advocates Vinod Saini, Basant Saini, Chain Sukh Gole, Kripal Singh Yadav, Wasim Ahmad, Dinesh Singh, as the advocates who were hurling abuses, along with 40-45 other advocates." (English translation by Court)
30. In cross examination he said that incident took place on 06.03.2010 and he has wrongly written the date as 08.03.2010 in examination-in-chief. He further said in cross examination as under:-
"vf/koDrkx.k fouksn lSuh clUr lSuh] pSu lq[k xksys] d`iky flag ;kno] olhe vgen rFkk fnus'k flag dks eSa O;fDrxr :i ls tkurk gWwwA ?kVuk ds fnu mijksDr yksx ekSds ij FksA mijksDr vf/koDrkx.k rFkk muds lkFk vU; vf/koDrkx.k iqjkuh dpsgjh vejksgk ls u, U;k;ky; Hkou esa f'kQ~fVax ds fojks/k eas FksA esjh vf/koDrkx.k ls dksbZ O;fDrxr yM+kbZ ugha FkhA""
"I personally know advocates Vinod Saini, Basant Saini, Chain Sukh Gole, Kripal Singh Yadav, Wasim Ahmad, Dinesh Singh. Aforesaid people were at the spot on the day of incident. Aforesaid advocates and other advocates with them were against the shifting from old District Court Amroha to New Court Building. I did not have any personal issues with the advocates." (English translation by Court)
31. DW-6, Mool Chand also verified the incident and has said as under:-
"eSa 6 ekpZ 2010 dks vij flfoy tt dh dksVZ esa rSukr FkkA vnkyr esa >xM+k gqvk Fkk mlls lEcfU/kr xokgh ds fy;s eq>s vnkyr esa ryc fd;k x;k gSA eSa viuh dksVZ esa Fkk ogkW dkQh odhy yksx vk;s vkSj xkyh xqIrk djus yxsA dgus yxs dksVZ cUn djksA esjs lkFk d`".keksgu is'kdkj Hkh FksA ml le; lkgc Mk;l ij cSBs gq;s FksA de ls de 30&35 yksx FksA ;s lkgc ds lkeus gqvk Fkk vkSj blds lEcU/k esa fy[k dj fn;k FkkA tks vf/koDrk yksx vk;s Fks mudks lc dks eSa ugha tkurk ysfdu FkksM+s cgqr dks tkruk FkkA eSa nks yksx pSu lq[k xksys vkSj d`iky flag ;kno dks tkurk FkkA ftudk uke i=kad fnukad 6-3-2010 ,usDpj 4 esa fy[kk gS mudks igpkurk gwWA fQj iwNus ij dgk fd eSa flQZ bUgha nks yksxks dks igpkurk gwW ckdh yksxksa dks ugha igpkurk gwWA ,slh dksbZ [kkl otg ugha gS fd eSa bUgh yksxksa dks igpkukr gwWA eq>s budks igpkuus esa dksbZ Hkwy ugha gqbZ gSA eSa ;s ugha tkurk fd ;s nksuks fdl pht dh odkyr djrs Fks nhokuh] QkStnkjh ;k jktLoA eSa ;s Hkh ugha tkurk fd ;s nksuksa dgkW jgrs gSA D;ksafd ;s vf/koDrk yksx dksVZ esa vk;s Fks vkSj xkyh xqIrk dj jgs Fks blfy;s i= fnukad 6-3-2010 fy[kk x;kA bu nks ds vykok ckdh yksxks ds ckjs esa dqN ugha dgukA ;s i= fy[kus ds fy;s lkgc us dgk FkkA lkgc dk uke [kqLrdnkfu'k gSA lkgc flfoy tt FksA eq>s ;s tkudkjh ugha gS fd lkgc us uke fy[kus ds fy;s dgk FkkA i= fnukad 6-3-2010 is'kdkj lkgc us fy[kk Fkk vkSj eSaus i<+dj gLrk{kj fd;k FkkA i<+k Fkk ckdh dkQh fnu gks x;s eq>s /;ku ughaA i=kad fnuakd 6-3-2010 ns[kdj dgk fd bl ij esjk uke fy[kk gS tks eSus fy[kk gSA fQj dgk fd esjk uke is'kdkj lkgc us fy[kk eSuss ugha fy[kkA""
"On 6th March 2010, I was posted in the court of Additional Civil Judge. A clash took place in the court, I have been summoned in the court to depose regarding the same. I was in my court. Many advocates came there and began hurling abuses. They asked to stall the court. Krishna Mohan, the Reader, was also with me. That time, the Presiding Officer was sitting on the Dais. They were at least 30-35 persons. It took place in presence of the Presiding Officer and a written complaint regarding this had been submitted. I didn't know all the advocates that had come but few of them. I knew two persons namely Chain Sukh Gole and Kripal Singh Yadav, whose names are written in Annexure No. 4- letter dated 6.3.2010. On enquiring further, stated that I know only these two persons; I don't know rest of the persons. There is no specific reason behind the fact that I am identifying only these two persons. I had not made any mistake in identifying these persons. I am not aware of the field of their legal practice- civil, criminal or revenue. I am not aware of their residences also. As these advocates had come in the court and were hurling abuses consequently the letter dated 6.3.2010 had been written. Except for these two persons, I don't want to say anything about the rest of the persons. The Presiding Officer had asked me to write this letter. The name of the Presiding Officer is Khustak Danish. The Presiding Officer was Civil Judge. I am not aware of the fact that the Presiding Officer had asked to write the name. The Reader had written the letter dated 6.3.2010 and I had signed after reading. I had read; since many days have passed, I don't remember. After perusing letter dated 6.3.2010, said that his name is written on it which has been written by him. Then said that the Reader wrote his name; he had not written. (English translation by Court)
32. In cross examination he has said as under:-
"6 ekpZ 2010 dks tks ?kVuk gqbZ Fkh esjs lkeus gqbZ Fkh vkSj mlh dh lwpuk eSaus tuin U;k;k/kh'k dks nh FkhA mijksDr ?kVuk esa pSu lq[k xksys vkSj d`iky flag ;kno 'kkfey FksA""
The incident that took place on 6th March 2010, took place in my presence and I had reported to the District Judge regarding the same. Chain Sukh Gole and Kripal Singh Yadav were involved in the aforementioned incident." (English translation by Court)
33. The basic defence taken by Contemnors that they were not present and had not participated in the alleged incident and they have been wrongly implicated stand belied by their own witnesses. DW-1, DW-2 and DW-5 have specifically said both aforesaid Contemnors besides others were present and abusing. DW-5 also narrated mischief and wriggles created by Advocates i.e. misbehaviour, obstruction in transport of record loaded on vehicles. In cross examination DW-5 has specifically named Contemnor Basant Singh Saini stating the he personally knows him and he was present on the date of incident on the site. Similarly DW-3, Sunil Kumar and DW-2, Qayum Raza have proved charge against Contemnors though to DW-3, Contemnors, during examination, tried to influence and demeanor of witness had been noted in the examination.
34. We are therefore, satisfied that defence of Contemnors that they were not present on 06.03.2010 at Court premises and did not obstruct Court Staff from transport of record is not correct.
35. Now we propose to consider defence with the aforesaid action even if true did not amount to criminal contempt as defined under Section 2 (c), as neither it can be construed to scandalizing or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings, or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner since it was after the Court hours when judicial functioning was not going on.
36. The definition of "Criminal Contempt" under Section 2(c) reads as under:
"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;"
37. Publication whether by words spoken or written etc. on any matter or doing of any other act, which scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court constitutes 'criminal contempt'. Such act, as aforesaid, if prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with due course of any judicial proceeding also amounts to 'criminal contempt'. Thirdly, if such an act interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner, again it would constitute 'criminal contempt'.
38. The word 'scandalize' has not been defined in Act, 1971. In Black's Law Dictionary word 'scandal' has been described as under:
"Scandal consists in the allegation of anything which is unbecoming the dignity of the court to hear, or is contrary to decency or good manners, or which charges some person with a crime not necessary to be shown in the cause, to which may be added that any unnecessary allegation, bearing cruelly upon the moral character of an individual, is also scandalous. The matter alleged, however, must be not only offensive, but also irrelevant to the cause, for however, offensive it be, if it is pertinent and material to the cause the party has a right to plead it. It may often be necessary to charge false representations, fraud and immorality, and the pleading will not be open to the objection of scandal, if the facts justified the charge."
39. In Aiyer's Law Lexicon, second edition, Page 1727, reference has been made to Millington Vs. Loring (1880) 6 QBD 190, where the word 'scandalous' has been explained as under:
"A pleading is said to be 'scandalous' if it alleges anything unbecoming the dignity of the court to hear or is contrary to good manners or which charges a crime immaterial to the issue. But the statement of a scandalous fact that is material to the issue is not a scandalous pleading."
40. In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India, (1999) 8 SCC 308, in para 7 of the judgment the Court said:
"7. We wish to emphasise that under the cover of freedom of speech and expression no party can be given a licence to misrepresent the proceedings and orders of the court and deliberately paint an absolutelty wrong and incomplete picture which has the tendency to scandalise the court and bring it into disrepute or ridicule."
41. Recently, the aforesaid definitions of the term 'scandalise' has been quoted with approval in Indirect Tax Practitioners' Association Vs. R.K. Jain 2010 8 SCC 281.2. A similar argument was raised In: Re Vs Sri Ram Kumar Singh Advocate [Contmept Application (Criminal) No. 19 of 2014] decided on 07.05.2015 and this Court referring to judgment in Rachapudi Subba Rao Vs Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh, 1981 (2) SCC 577, observed that scandalizing, obstructing and interfering with Court's functioning, even in administrative matters will be covered by definition of ''criminal contempt' under Section 2 (c) of Act 1971. Shifting of record by Court staff is for the purpose of functioning of Court. While shifting the same, if Judicial Officers and staff are obstructed and abused, though it is an administrative function, yet such an act is an interference and obstruction in judicial matters and would amount to 'criminal contempt' under Section 2 (c) (iii) of Act 1971.
42. In Sri Ram Kumar Singh Advocate (supra), Court has observed that the word "judicial proceeding" has been used only in Section 2 (c) (ii) and not in Section 2 (c) (i) and (iii). Phrase "administration of justice" in Sub clause (iii) is far wider in scope than"course of any judicial proceeding". The last words "in any other manner" of Sub clause (iii) further extend its ambit and give it a residuary character. Sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) describe three distinct species of 'criminal contempt', but they are not always mutually exclusive. Interference or tendency to interfere with any judicial proceeding or administration of justice is a common element of Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) which covers entire field since clause (iii) is very wide in its contents.
43. The next argument that the incident which had taken place after Court hours did not construe any offence and therefore no criminal contempt proceedings can be initiated in view of Section 10 of Act 1971. A similar argument has been negatived by a Division Bench of this Court (of which I was also a member) in Re: Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava and Ors., 2016 (10) ADJ 115. Irrespective of the fact that loss or damage of Court property may satisfy requirement of offence under some provisions of IPC, the act of Contemnor, which scandalize or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower authority of the Court is a 'criminal contempt' and has to be dealt with in accordance with provisions of Act, 1971.
44. In Re: Arundhati Roy, AIR 2002 SC 1375, Court held that offence under IPC is different than Contempt of Court. The law of defamation under Penal Code cannot be equated with law of contempt of Court in general terms. Relying on Privy Council decision in Surender Nath Vs. Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court, I.L.R. Vol. X. Cal. 109, it was held that "although contempt may include defamation, yet an offence of contempt is something more than mere defamation and is of a different character". What is made punishable under various provisions of IPC, offence of damage of a public property, obstruction in function of a public servant etc. but is foreign for proceeding for contempt of Court. If an act satisfy definition of 'criminal contempt', as defined under Section 2 (c) of Act, 1971, proceedings for such act can be taken only under Act, 1971 quite apart from the fact that other remedy may also be open to aggrieved officer under various provisions of IPC.
45. An Advocate is an officer of Court. Advocates are not expected to act like street urchins creating obstruction in transfer of judicial record and abuse Court staff. 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 diligent and his conduct should also be diligent. 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 a moral agent. This character, he cannot shake off, by any other character or 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. 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. He is expected to act in such a way to raise glory of his profession and establish an ideal by his behavior, conduct or otherwise act. He must refrain from acting in such a way which maligns or lowers down his image or creates an embarrassing situation before Court. When judicial record for smooth and proper functioning of Court is being transferred by Court staff from one place to another, it is none of the business of Advocates to create obstruction therein, not only physically but even by hurling abuses to Court and Court staff. If anything wrong could have happened to judicial record, it would have directly hampered judicial proceedings of Court, for example, if some record is taken away by some miscreant Advocate or some documents or taken away or torn, etc.
46. We do not find any reason to take a view that the kind of activities in which indulgence of Contemnors has been found proved, is not a "criminal contempt" as defined under Section 2 (c) and they were free to indulge in such activities despite complaint by Court staff as also by Judicial Officers.
47. We are of the view, that charge leveled against Contemnors is proved and they are held guilty of committing criminal contempt of the Court.
48. Now coming to question of quantum of sentence, we find that Contemnors, not only indulged in the activities as aforesaid, but also tried to evade consequences thereof by taking unsubstantiated defence or a false pretext that they were not actually the persons, present and involved in the incident. Even defence witnesses summoned at the request of Contemnors have proved their guilt. It is true that in respect of other Contemnors, punishment of one day imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- was imposed but that was the view taken for those Contemnors, who realized their mistake, accepted the same and stood up before Court to bear the punishment by conceding. These two Contemnors, on the contrary, have tried to wriggle out of the consequences of their activities by taking a defence which they could not substantiate. It also shows that Contemnors lack any attitude of remorse, repentance or apologetic conduct. In our view, Contemnors therefore deserve to be punished in more severe way. Looking into entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, adequate punishment to Contemnors will be simple imprisonment of fifteen days and fine of Rs. 2000/- and also to restrain them from entering Court premises for a period of six months.
49. We accordingly allow this contempt application and after holding Contemnors, Dilshad Ali and Basant Singh Saini guilty of charge framed on 21.04.2015, we impose punishment of fifteen days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-. We also debar Contemnors from entering Court premises for a period of six months which period shall commence from 03.10.2017.
50. Copy of this order shall be made available to District Judge, J.P. Nagar and Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar as also Registrar General, High Court Allahabad for communication and compliance.
Order Date :- 22.09.2017 Pravin Court No. - 34 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 29 of 2010 Applicant :- In Re Opposite Party :- Sri Khaleeq Ahmad And 40 Others Advocates Counsel for Applicant :- A. G. A. Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arun Kumar Singh I,Mohit Bihari Mathur, P.C.Srivastava Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. After delivery of judgement, the two contemners pray that sentence imposed by this Court vide judgement of date be suspended to enable them to avail statutory remedy of appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") before the superior court.
2. In the circumstances, we suspend the sentence for a period of 60 days to enable them to avail remedy of appeal. In case, the appeal is not filed or if filed but no otherwise order is passed in the appeal, the contemners shall surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, immediately after expiry of aforesaid period, who would immediately take appropriate steps for serving out sentence by contemners as directed in the judgment of date passed in this contempt application.
Order Date :- 22.09.2017 Pravin