Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. This statement made by the writ petitioner-contemner, through his affidavit filed now, must be true, since on the earlier hearing, the counsel-contemner himself owed responsibility stating that he alone is responsible for drafting writ petition. Earlier, he categorically admitted that the contemner-petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gupta was merely rubber stamp and he did not know anything and it is he who drafted the entire writ petition. Strangely, the present stand of the counsel contemner is that the allegations contained in the writ petition, as against the respondent No. 1 judicial officer are correct and justified and he is ready to argue writ petition on merits and as such there is no necessity to appear before the Additional District Judge and to file an affidavit of apology as it would be against his conscience.

29. Let us now analyse about the first aspect against the counsel-contemner. For this purpose the relevant portions of the scurrilous allegations made in the writ petition drafted by the counsel on record are quoted as under:

Pages 3 and 4 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Hon'ble Governor of the State of Jharkhand through and on behalf of the respondent No. 4 to accord sanction for criminal prosecution of the respondent No. 1, for his judicial action/orders, as aforesaid, under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in view of the fact that the learned respondent No. 1 is falling/has fallen in the net of provision of Section 219 of the Indian Penal Code, which is quoted below for ready reference and perusal of this Hon'ble Court, on the ground that the aforesaid judicial orders passed by him is illegal, mala fide, contrary to law and the materials on judicial record, deliberate judicial order favouring the respondents No. 2 and 3 and in complete partiality, keeping in waste paper basket the well settled law as well as established principle of impartiality, which is the core quality of a Judge presiding over a judicial proceeding. The facts on judicial record as stated hereinafter will show that the respondent No. 1 has deliberately ignored to follow the order passed by his superior authority, such as, learned District Judge, Giridih and this Hon'ble Court knowing it fully well that he is passing illegal order to show favour to the respondents No. 2 and 3.

39. So, these paragraphs contained in the affidavit filed by the contemner lawyer would indicate that even after he appeared before Justice Permod Kohli and tendered unconditional apology, he never realized his offensive action, but on the other hand tried to justify his move of drafting and filing of writ petition containing unsavoury allegations against the judicial officer without any basis.

40. The counsel-contemner, having tendered unconditional apology before Justice Permod Kohli on 15.1.2007 for his act of contempt, it is quite painful to see that he has now chosen to file an affidavit in I.A. No. 395 of 2007 on 12.3.2007 criticising and commenting about the act of Justice Kohli initiating contempt proceeding against his client and himself. Once he accepted that he only drafted writ petition, then he must own responsibility by placing materials to show and explain under what circumstances he made the very serious allegations against the judicial officer alleging that he has been dishonest and passed order for some consideration inclusive of money. Further he wanted to justify his action by requiring this Court to go into the matter in deep even though the client has not supported him by stating that he had never given instructions to make such allegations against a Judge. As indicated above, his client engaged another senior counsel and filed affidavit, tendering apology before both the Additional District Judge as well as before this Court and also seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file appeal before the appropriate forum. When that is the fact situation, we are at a loss to understand as to how the erstwhile counsel for the petitioner, who is a contemner-lawyer can persuade and insist this Court to go into the veracity of the allegations made against the judicial officer in the writ petition filed by the contemner client. This attitude depicts the conduct of the lawyer, who is bent upon accusing, insulting and threatening both Judge of subordinate judiciary as well as Judge of High Court, which is quite unbecoming.

75. From the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court, as referred to above, it is manifestly clear that the strong arm of the law in the public interest and public justice, has to necessarily strike a blow on the counsel contemner, in order to preserve dignity of the Court as no one including an advocate can claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt, if his act or conduct is calculated to obstruct the due course of justice.

76. For the reasons discussed above, we are to conclude that it has been established that the counsel-contemner, Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal', has made scurrilous remarks without instructions from his client and any supporting material whatsoever, in the writ petition drafted by him, against the Additional District Judge and also commented in threatening words against the learned single Judge of this Court. Consequently, we find the contemner, Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal' guilty of the offence under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act.