Undoubtedly no crowed may be allowed to subvert the process of court of law and court judgement is applauding

Reserved on 20.07.2016
Delivered on 21.09.2016
Court No. – 34
Applicant :- In Re
Opposite Party :- Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, Advocate and 9 Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dharam Pal Singh, Sr. Advocate, S.C.
Dwivedi,A.K. Srivastava,Avanish Mishra,B.N. Singh,S. Niranjan,Suresh
Gupta,U.K. Saxena
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon’ble Shashi Kant,J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
1. Criminal contempt proceedings were initiated against 10
Contemnors namely :Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
(Contemnor no.1); Arvind Kumar Gautam, Advocate (Contemnor no.2);
Gyanendra Singh Rajawat, Advocate (Contemnor no.3); Suresh Dixit,
Advocate (Contemnor no.4); Raghunath Das Bishnoi, Advocate
(Contemnor no.5); Yusuf Ishtiyaq, Advocate (Contemnor no.6);
Karmksheta Awasthi, Advocate (Contemnor no.7); Aftab Ahmad,
Advocate (Contemnor no.8); Udai Shankar Dwivedi, Advocate
(Contemnor no.9); and, Pankaj Gupta, Advocate (Contemnor no.10),
pursuant to an inquiry report of an incident took place on 20th
November, 2014 in the afternoon, in District Judgeship Jalaun at Orai in
the Court of Manoj Kumar Shukla, Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Court No.3, Jalaun at Orai (hereinafter referred to as “InformantPresiding
2. The advocates alongwith the aforesaid Contemnors pressurized
Informant-Presiding Officer to retire in Chamber since advocates had
passed a resolution of abstention and when he resented, advocates
manhandled, assaulted and insulted him. Informant-Presiding Officer
narrated the entire incident to Administrative Judge on telephone and
also said that District Judge did not take any appropriate action in the
matter. On the recommendation of Administrative Judge, Chief Justice
vide order dated 21.11.2014 directed a fact finding inquiry, which was
conducted by Sri Virendra Kumar-II, Special Officer (Vigilance), High
Court, Allahabad [hereinafter referred to as “S.O. (Vig.)”] and he
submitted report on 17.12.2014. The report was accepted by
Administrative Committee of Court and in the light of the findings
recorded by S.O.(Vig.), matter was assigned to Committee dealing with
contempt reference from subordinate courts.
3. On 23.02.2015, Committee, prima facie finding a case of criminal
contempt, made recommendation whereupon Chief Justice vide order
dated 28.3.2015 directed the matter to be placed before Court on
judicial side having jurisdiction of criminal contempt.
4. On 7th May, 2015, Court noticing the fact that Contemnors have
been found to abuse informant-Presiding Officer, shouted slogans and
assaulted him by throwing CPU of computer and pen holder, creating
ruckus and ransacked dais of Court, and in the incident some
advocates also sustained injuries, found prima facie case of ‘criminal
contempt’ against the aforesaid advocates since their aforesaid acts
amount to scandalizing the Court, interfering and obstructing
administration of justice, tarnishing image of Court and lowering down
dignity and authority of Court, issued notice requiring them to show
cause why they may not be punished for committing contempt.
5. Contemnors appeared before Court on 7th July, 2015
represented by Sri Dharam Pal Singh, Senior Advocate, who requested
to supply a copy of enquiry report dated 17.12.2014. Court issued
direction to this effect.
6. Contemnors then filed replies and after perusing the same, Court
framed charge against Contemnors on 24.8.2015, which reads as
under :
“You, Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, Arvind Kumar
Gautam, Gyanendra Singh Rajawat, Suresh Dixit, Raghunath
Das Bishnoi, Yusuf Ishtiyaq, Karmkshetra Awasthi, Aftab Ahmad,
Udai Shankar Dwivedi and Pankaj Gupta, Advocates, who are all
stated to be practising lawyers and also associated with the
District Bar Association of Jalaun at Orai on 20th November,
2014 at about 12.45 p.m. forcibly entered Court No. 3 presided
over by Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, the Additional District &
Sessions Judge and shouted slogans using unparliamentary
language and assaulted him physically by throwing items on
his dais thereby creating a ruckus and ransacked the court
resulting in injuries sustained by some of the advocates in the
court room that left the court scandalized thereby lowering the
esteem of the judiciary. The said incident therefore amounts to a
clear interference with and an obstruction in the administration of
justice and such act substantially interferes with the due course
of justice which falls within the definition of criminal contempt
under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and,
therefore, this court is of the prima facie opinion that you
contemnors deserve to be tried for having committed the criminal
contempt of the subordinate court as reported for which you
deserve to be punished.” (emphasis added)
7. Applications were filed thereafter by Contemnors requesting to
supply copies of statements recorded by S.O. (Vig.) on the basis
whereof report dated 17.12.2014 was submitted and also a video
footage, which was taken note in the said report. Court accepted the
said request and vide order dated 01.9.2015, directed to supply the
aforesaid material to Contemnors.
8. Though a large number of advocates had put in appearance on
behalf of Contemnors but Sri Dharam Pal Singh, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava has advanced submissions on
behalf of all the Contemnors except Contemnor no.5 on whose behalf
Sri Avnish Mishra has advanced his submissions. Besides Sudhir
Mehrotra, Special Counsel, nominated by Court to assist in this matter,
has also advanced his submissions.
9. Having heard learned counsel for parties, perusing video footage
and other documents and considering affidavits filed by Contemnors
and other relevant material, we proceed to deal with matter on merits.
The defence taken by Contemnors in the affidavits and merits would be
discussed simultaneously.
10. Informant-Presiding Officer came to be posted at Jalaun at Orai
and joined thereat on 15th March, 2014. He was designated as Special
Judge, E.C. Act. On 23.04.2014, General Secretary on behalf of District
Jalaun Bar Association Orai (hereinafter referred to as “Bar
Association”) sent a letter to District Judge complaining against
behaviour of Informant-Presiding Officer and stated that members of
Bar Association shall abstain judicial work from 24.04.2014. Another
letter dated 25.04.2014 sent to Administrative Judge of Judgeship
requesting that in the month of May and June, Court’s time be made in
morning from 6 A.M. to 1 P.M. instead 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. and it was also
said that Informant-Presiding Officer was not working properly and
advocates are abstaining Court from 24.04.2014.
11. Subsequently Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava came to be
elected as President of Bar Association. A communication dated
18.10.2014 of Secretary, Bar Association was issued to Advocates that
Court of Informant-Presiding Officer shall be boycotted till he is
transferred outside the District and said communication was also
endorsed to District Judge. Vide letter dated 21.10.2014, it was
forwarded by Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, District Judge, Jalaun at Orai to
this Court.
12. On 20.11.2014, following massage was received on the mobile of
the then Administrative Judge of District Judgeship Jalaun at Orai from
informant-Presiding Officer :
“Respected Lordship,
Today at 12.45 p.m. Advocate Pradumn Kumar
Srivastava, President of Bar and his colleagues attacked on
Court and beaten me and the D.J. is not taking any action.
M.K.Shukla, ADJ 3” (emphasis added)
13. Thereupon Administrative Judge referred the matter to Chief
Justice and also vide letter dated 20.11.2014 directed District Judge
concerned to take appropriate action and inform immediately.
14. On 21.11.2014, Registrar General submitted note before Chief
Justice as under :
“1. The under-signed made telephonic inquiries about the
incident mentioned in the said letter, it was established that the
said incident has taken place.
2. The lawyers of the Bar Association of District Jalaun at
Orai were boycotting the court of Sri Shukla for
approximately thirty days.
3. On 20.11.2014 Sri Shukla was sitting in the Court and a
mob of lawyers had manhandled him though the District
Judge telepathically informed the undersigned that two P.A.C.
Personnel were posted there, but it appears that none had
come to protect the officer.
4. That there appears serious lapses in making security
arrangement for the safety of Sri Shukla.” (emphasis
15. Chief Justice thereupon ordered spot inquiry and this was
conducted by S.O. (Vig.), who submitted his 94 pages report.
16. Statements of Court Reader, Orderly and a Class IV employee,
were recorded by S.O. (Vig.). Perusal thereof show that at about 12.45
P.M., Informant-Presiding Officer was sitting on the dias when several
Advocates entered Court room, shouting slogans, threw CPU of
computer and pen-holder towards Informant-Presiding Officer; Table
glass and and pen holders were broken and files fell down and
scattered. Due to ruckus created by advocates, Informant – Presiding
Officer got down from dias whereupon advocates gripped and dragged
him out of Court in Varandah. In this ruckus some advocates also
sustained injuries. In the process when advocates gripped informantPresiding
Officer and manhandled him, he also got indulged in scuffle.
17. S.O. (Vig.) for the purpose of inquiry formulated following three
points :
“1. Whether Sri Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava, the
President Bar Association, Jalaun at Orai along with his
colleagues attacked on 20.11.2014 in the Court of Sri
Manoj Kumar Shukla, Special Officer (Gangster
Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 03,
Jalaun at Orai and he was man handled by these
2. Whether the then District Judge Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav did
not provide proper security to Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
and provoked learned counsels to beat him up?
3. Whether on 20.11.2014 at about 12:30 Sri Manoj Kumar
Shukla himself along with his gunner and ten constable of
P.A.C. assaulted on the member advocates of delegations
with kicks, fists and gun and constable of P.A.C. Beaten-up
the learned acvocates with sticks and caused injuries to
them while these advocates went to inform about the
resolution passed in general meeting on 20.11.2014 at about
11:00 a.m.?”
18. After referring to evidence collected by him, he recorded his
conclusion and findings as under :
“Conclusion :
On the basis of above discussions and appreciation of the
evidence of the witnesses, I have arrived at the following
E.W. 12 Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, E.W. 48 Sri Shailendra
Kumar Sharma, E.W. 37 – HCP 142 Sri Santosh Kumar Sachan,
Pairokar of the police station Rampura, E.W. 31 – Sri Arvind
Kumar Srivastava, Senior Prosecuting Officer, E.W.18 – Sri Ram
Jiyawan Shukla and E.W. 26 – Sri Neeraj Mishra, Class-IV
Employees have proved the incident dated 20.10.2014, stating
that some advocates had arrived reached in the Court and
thrown a bag towards the dais, which dropped between
reader and the presiding officer. E.W. 48 – Reader has
clarified this fact the learned advocates and the presiding officer
had conversation in high volumes of voice, some senior
advocates along with Court Moharir took these advocates and
accused person out side the court, when the court was vacated
by these persons, someone locked the court outside. After
one hour this lock was opened by someone. E.W. 48 – clarified
this fact that they were detained in the Court Room during this
period. After opening of lock further dates were fixed in presence
of accused persons.
The learned advocates have conveyed this fact that on
20.11.2014, a resolution was passed at about 11:00 a.m. in the
general meeting of the District Bar Association, which was
handed over at about 11:15 a.m. by the delegation of Bar
Association to the District Judge, then the delegation informed
the various courts about boycott and reached at about 12:30
p.m. At the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla. Video
recording made by him also shows time of recording on
20.11.2014 time at about 01:04:08. They have refuted this
suggestion that delegation of the Bar association went
straightway to the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, after visiting
the chamber of the District Judge.
The learned advocates have stated that Sri Manoj Kumar
Shukla has passed orders arbitrarily and illegally. He has
insulted the litigants and learned advocates in the open court.
They have quoted an example of his misbehave that Sri Manoj
Kumar Shukla told a litigant in presence of Sri Devendra Ved,
Senior Advocate, while he was conducting cross examination
that why he has engaged learned advocate, he will cause
damage to him and he would be convicted. On the same day, Sri
Devendra Ved, sustained cardiac attack. The learned advocates
have forwarded complaint written as well as oral regarding
misbehave of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla to the District Bar
Association. The learned advocates have also clarified this fact
that most of the learned advocates are not satisfied with the
working of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.
Finding on Issue No.01.
The learned advocates entered in the Court room of Sri
Manoj Kumar Shukla forcefully and attacked on 20.11.2014 at
about 12:45 – 01:00 p.m. on him while he was sitting on the
Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has named Sri Pradhuman
Kumar Srivastava, the president of the District Bar Association,
Arvind Kumar Singh, Rajawat, Suresh Dixit, Raghunath Dass
Bishnoi and Yusuf Ishtiyaq who abused him, shouted slogans
and assaulted him by throwing CPU of computer, pen holder and
beaten him up.
I have watched video recording produced by Sri Manoj
Kumar Shukla. It revealed that Sri Pradhuman Kumar
Srivastava, Advocate, E.W.1 the President and E.W. 02 Sri
Arvind Kumar Gautam, Advocate, General secretary of the
District Bar Association along with 10-15 advocates entered
forcefully and created ruckus and ransacked the dais of the
court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla E.W.1 – Sri Pradhuman
Kumar Srivastava, Sri Gyanendra Singh Rajawat, E.W.-08 – Sri
Suresh Dixit, E.W.43 – Sri Karma Kshetra Awasthi, Sri Aftab
Ahmad, E.W.-4, Sri Udai Shanker Dwivedi, Sri Pankaj Gupta,
Advocates sustained injuries in this incident dated 20-11-
2014 is established, which shows they have participated
actively in this incident. Therefore, proceeding of the contempt
of the court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla should be drawn against
these learned advocates.
E.W.36 – Constable No. 65 – Sri Abir Singh Court
Moharir of the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla also sustained
injuries, while he was trying to save Sri Manoj Kumar
Shukla. He has also clarified this fact that only two P.A.C
personnels armed with rifles were present at the point of time of
incident dated 20-11-2014.
E.W.36 and E.W.15 – Sri Raj Kumar Segar, E.W. 16 – Sri
Member Singh, P.A.C. Personnel, E.W.17 Sri Ramesh Chandra
Bhadauria, Reader, E.W. 18 Sri Raj Jiyawan Shukla and E.W. 26
– Sri Neerj Mishra, Class IV Employees and E.W.31 – Senior
Prosecuting Officer has proved this fact that no baton charge
was made on the learned advocates and these employees tried
to save Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla during the course of incident
dated 20-11-2014.
E.W. 32 – Sri Girja Shanker Dwivedi and Sri E.W.34 – Sri
Kamal Kant Kushwaha, have clarified this fact that on 20-11-
2014, no baton charge was made on learned advocates only
slap and fists were used during thrashing each other. E.W. 34
has stated that police personnels were not having sticks. E.W.
38 – Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate has clarified this
fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla gripped and thrashed only
one advocate E.W.47 – Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gurjar, Assistant
Government counsel of the Court of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
has also clarified this fact that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla had
abused learned advocates only, he did not see anyone to
thrash each other. No F.I.R. Has been lodged yet and no injury
report of any learned advocate has been produced before me,
who sustained injuries in the incident dated 20.11.2014.
Finding on Point No.3
1. It is pertinent to mention here that on the basis of
appreciation of evidence of the above mentioned witnesses and
fact and circumstances narrated by them, it revealed that Sri
Manoj Shukla after attack on him got down from the dais
and abused learned advocates who entered in the court
room. Meanwhile, advocates gripped him and dragged
towards Varandah outside his court and manhandled and
abused him also. Thus Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has also
provoked learned advocates and indulge in scuffle with those
Work and conduct of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla.
On persual of comments dated 17-04-2014, it is clearly
established that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla had protested against
the then District Judge, because he was not satisfied with the
allotment of his residence and shifting of his court room.
Likewise, the then District Judge had discharged him from the
responsibility as the Officer In- charge of Library and Nodal
Officer of Computers. The reasons mentioned by him regarding
the irregularities committed for the purchase of oil, toner of ink
cartridge for computer printer and judgment paper and other
stationery items and non availability of new edition of books at
library, may likely be correct, even then it is inferred from the
facts mentioned in this comments that Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla
was not satisfied with the allotment of his official accommodation
and shifting of his court.
The incident dated 24.04.2014 occurred at night at the
guest house of Irrigation Department has been conjoined by Sri
Manoj Kumar Shukla with the facts of recall of Civil Appeal No.
50 of 2012 – Smt. Khillan Devi Vs. State of U.P. which is not
acceptable, because Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2012 was related to
section 72 Excise Act, which could have only he heard by the
District Judge as held by Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad and
Uttranchal (Uttrakahnd) High Court.
On perusal of the documentary evidence produced by E.W. -40 –
Sri Harnath Singh, Senior Advocate, it revealed that it may be
possible that office bearer of the District Bar Association
tried to pressurize Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla to obtain
favorable orders n their favour and members advocate of
their group. There is substance in the statement of Sri
Manoj Kumar Shukla that he was pressurized by learned
advocates, whose name has been mentioned by him in his
statement of procure judicial order/judgment in their favour.
Therefore, on the basis of evidence of E.W. 40 Sri Harnath
Singh, Senior Advocate, E.W.-45 Sri Raja Ram Chaturvedi and
E.W. 46 Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, it revealed that office
bearer of the District Bar Association and some other advocates
of their groups were not satisfied with the way of working of Sri
Manoj Kumar Shukla and they could not be successful to
pressurize him therefore, they carried on boycott the court
of Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla from 18.10.2014.
Learned advocates have conveyed this fact that no
complaint was received at the Bar Association that Sri Manoj
Kumar Shukla has decided cases by receiving bribe. He is
not a corrupt judicial officer.
Point in issue no.2.
Findings :
On the basis of these facts and circumstances inference
may be drawn safely that Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then
District Judge, Jalaun at Orai has facilitated learned
advocates to carry on boycott of judicial work of his court,
during the period from 20.10.2014 up to 20.11.2014 and to
commit incident on these dates.
19. Now we may refer to the replies filed by Contemnors.
20. Except Contemnor 5 Raghunath Das Vishnoi, a collective reply
vide affidavit of Contemnor 1, sworn on 24.8.2015, has been filed. It is
said that the incident dated 20.11.2014 has not happened in the
manner as alleged by ‘Informant-Presiding Officer’ and recorded by
S.O.(Vig.) in his report. Contemnors neither abused nor assaulted
Informant-Presiding Officer nor damaged court’s property. The video
recording, which was prepared by Informant-Presiding Officer, has
been wrongly relied by S.O.(Vig.) ignoring the fact that such recording
in Court is not permissible and it goes a long way to suggest/determine
the own conduct of Informant-Presiding Officer. Video recording was
shown to S.O. (Vig.) on 26/27.11.2014 i.e. after a gap of 6-7 days
giving sufficient opportunity for manipulation in video recording. The
preparation/recording of video by manipulation by several device
including device of cut paste is a common feature, which the modern
development of science has made easily possible. With regard to
injuries sustained by some advocates, inquiry report does not refer to
medical report of anyone else. Recording of Video through laptop at the
time of alleged occurrence was practically not possible. Video recording
timing is 01:04:08 p.m. on 20.11.2014 whereas the incident is said to
have taken place between 12:45 to 1.00 p.m.
21. Then in paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of affidavit, allegations
are made against Informant-Presiding Officer and it would be
appropriate to reproduce the same as under :
“15. That the bare perusal of the Inquiry Report would show
that the learned Judge, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla appears to be
Modern Don Quijote-de-la Mancha. He posses himself to be a
fighter treating all others as wrong and full of vices. He has
complaint against all possible authorities i.e. District Judge,
Police Authorities including S.S.P., District Administration
including District Magistrate, prosecution lawyers and
lowyers in general and litigants, who unfortunately happen to
be attending the court of the Learned Judge, Sri Manoj Kumar
Shukla. Sri Shukla is in the habit of issuing notices to all possible
authorities in almost every case. He is in the habit of teasing the
litigants, not only in criminal cases, but also in civil cases. Inspite
of receiving High Court’s order of bail keeping the accused in jail
for weeks is his usual habit. To call Advocates, “Dalal” of
District Judge and other Judicial is his daily practice. All
these facts came to the light during inquiry proceeding by the
Learned Vigilance Officer.
16. That it has also come in the inquiry report that Learned
Judge, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla is in the habit of abusing his
own staff, like his stenographer.
17. That the evidence of EW-23 Sri Umesh Dixit,
Stenographer of Learned Judge, Sri Monoj Kumar Shukla
discussed at Page 259 to 261 is sufficient to show/prove that the
Learned Judge, Sri Manoj Shukla himself responsible for what
happened on the day of occurrence. In view of the evidence of
EW-23, the observations of the Learned Vigilance Officer with
respect to the Issue No.01 are subject to more than one
interpretation and not justified.
18. That the Learned Vigilance Officer has clearly found that
the Learned Judge, Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla has manipulated/
prepared false evidence against the then Learned District
Judge, and S.S.P. Jalaun at Orai (Kindly see at page no.203 of
the inquiry report).
19. That the Learned Vigilance Officer has also observed
(page 275 – 276) that he could not peruse the inquiry report
dated 28.06.2014 and the letter dated 24.04.2014 submitted by
Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, the then district Judge, Sri Manoj Kumar
20. That regarding the work and conduct of Pradhuman
Kumar Srivastava made by Learned Vigilance Officer at page
276 of report, it is submitted here that Pradhuman Kumar
Srivastava (present deponent) has never been served with a
copy of any show cause notice with respect to the Transfer
Application (Civil) No. 501 of 2014 filed before this Hon’ble
Court. To the best of knowledge of the deponent, he has never
written any letter dated 20.09.2014 is filed in the aforesaid case.
If any such letter dated 20.09.2014 is filed in the aforesaid
transfer application, the same is denied by the deponent. It
appears that (if at all) aforesaid letter dated 20.09.2014 is a
forged document prepared and produced by the parties to the
22. All these paragraphs have been sworn by Contemnor no.1-
deponent of the affidavit, on personal knowledge.
23. Contemnor 5, Raghunath Das Bisnoi had filed a separate reply
through Sri Suresh Gupta, Advocate, and Sri V.P.Srivastava, Senior
Advocate. A preliminary objection is taken that as per Rule 6 of Chapter
XXXV-E of Rules of the Court, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “1952
Rules”), notice has not accompanied copy of SMS message sent by
Informant-Presiding Officer, statement of witnesses and other
documents. In the message sent by Informant-Presiding Officer,
Contemnor 5 was not referred or named. Inquiry report shows that
offence under Section 228 read with 323 IPC was committed, hence, in
view of proviso to Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1971”), no cognizance could have been
taken. The Informant – Presiding Officer ought to have lodged a
complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. S.O. (Vig.) did not frame any issue
regarding identity of persons actually involved in the incident dated
18.11.2014 (though incident given rise to this criminal contempt is
dated 20.11.2014 but in para 3(IV), Contemnor no.5 has mentioned the
date of incident as 18.11.2014). In detailed reply, it is said that S.O.
(Vig.) has taken note of various incidents occurred during 20.10.2014 to
24.11.2014 though the inquiry was confined to the incident dated
20.11.2014. Contemnor 5 neither participated in the incident nor was
present in the Court nor in the vicinity of Court of Informant – Presiding
Officer. Wife of Contemnor 5 is a patient of Multiple Myeloma (Blood
Cancer) for the last three years and under treatment of Experts of
Apollo Cancer Institute, New Delhi; Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai;
Vendanta Hospital Gurgaon, Haryana and Rajeev Gandhi Research
Institute, New Delhi.
24. Contemnor 5 had no time to indulge himself in politics of Bar
Association and appears in Court when his case is taken up in
respective Courts. On 20.11.2014, when resolution was passed by
Association, Contemnor 5 was neither present nor signed the said
resolution. Informant – Presiding Officer has personal grudge against
Contemnor 5 since he was making several complaints under a wrong
impression that Contemnor 5 provoked advocates for
strike/demonstration against him at the instance of Sri Vinod Kumar
Yadav, the then District Judge. The fact is that in three cases, narrated
by Informant – Presiding Officer, neither Contemnor 5 was counsel nor
had filed any transfer application. Informant – Presiding Officer has not
named Contemnor 5 in the message sent to Administrative Judge on
mobile and inclusion of his name is an after thought for some other
reasons. None of the witnesses mentioned name of Contemnor 5 or
his presence in the Court. S.O. (Vig.) himself has found Informant –
Presiding Officer guilty of lying in chambers for 7-8 hours and
misbehaving with his own staff. S.O. (Vig.) has used the word “patient
of psychiatry” for Informant – Presiding Officer. No attempt has been
made by S.O. (Vig.) to identify the advocates, allegedly involved in the
25. After framing of charge, Contemnors have filed their replies and
we may refer the same in brief as under :
26. Contemnor 1: Denying the charge, he has said that in case he
is found guilty, he is offering his unconditional apology. However, it is
said that S.O. (Vig.), who has relied on statements of (1) EW – 15 – Sri
Raj Kumar Sengar (PAC); (2) EW – 16 – Sri Member Singh (PAC);
(3) EW – 17 – Sri Ramesh Chandra Bhadauriya – Reader of the Court;
(4) EW – 18 – Ram Jiyawan Shukla- Ardaly of the Court; (5) EW – 26 –
Sri Neeraj Mishra – Office Peon of the Court; (6) EW – 31 – Sri Arvind
Kumar Tiwari – Senior Prosecuting Officer; (7) EW – 32 – Sri Girja
Shanker Dwivedi – An Advocate of long standing at Orai Courts; (8)
EW – 34 – Sri Kamal Kant Kushwaha – Advocate at Orai Courts; (9)
EW – 36 – CP Abeer Singh- Court Moharir of IIIrd A.D.J.; and (10) EW
– 47 – Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gurjar – Assistant Government Counsel
(ADGC); and if all these statements are taken together, the real picture
of occurrence is not clear and free from doubt. There is a witness EW –
23 – Umesh Chandra Dixit, Court Stenographer, whose statement is
otherwise. EW – 36 – CP Abir Singh, stated that Informant – Presiding
Officer threatened him to depose against Contemnors. EW – 47 –
Sanjeev Kumar Gurjar, ADGC, has also deposed against Informant –
Presiding Officer. Video recording is nothing but a silent recording and
is a manipulated act of Informant – Presiding Officer. The purpose is to
remove remarks or abuses or vulgar and unparliamentary statements
of Informant – Presiding Officer. The facility of video recording on
laptop was not available to subordinate judiciary and the very fact that
video recording has been made, shows conduct of Informant –
Presiding Officer. Video recording only shows that Police Personnel
were trying to obstruct entries of lawyers. Even if lawyers were trying
to enter Court room, it cannot be said that purpose of lawyers was
to interfere in administration of justice. Advocates are free to move
in Court and their entry could not have been obstructed. The presence
of Contemnor 1 has not been proved by any independent evidence.
Work and conduct of Informant – Presiding Officer itself was
objectionable and even if he was not a corrupt officer, he had no
licence to misbehave with others. The comments and findings recorded
by S.O. (Vig.) against Presiding Officer fortify this inference.
27. Contemnor 5 in his separate affidavit has stated that in the
statements given by various witnesses, who are employees of the
Court, Police Personnel or Government Advocates i.e. EW-15, 16, 17,
20, 23, 24, 26, 31, 36 and 42, his presence has not been found at the
time of incident. Contemnor 5 has been falsely implicated by Informant
– Presiding Officer.
28. Contemnor 6 is 68 years of age and has a practice in law for the
last 40 years. Against Informant-Presiding Officer, two complaints were
made thereupon District Judge made inquiry and submitted report but
no action has been taken by Court, which encouraged InformantPresiding
Officer to behave arrogantly and use derogatory words to the
advocates and others. In Special Trial No.73 of 2005 (State Vs. Navi
Bux) under Section 135 Electricity Act, P.S. Kotwali Orai, Contemnor 6
was appearing as counsel for accused and vide judgment dated
22.04.2014, Court convicted accused and sentenced for two years
rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.75,000/-. The judgment was
delivered at 3:30 P.M. Contemnor 6 prepared applications for providing
certified copy of judgment, and to stay fine and enlarge accused on
bail. The applications were not received in the Court and instead
Informant-Presiding Officer retired to his Chamber. Ultimately, accused
was released on bail by High Court in Criminal Appeal. Contemnor 6
personally met District Judge and made complaint against conduct and
behaviour of Informant-Presiding Officer. He also moved an application
before President, Bar Association on 22.4.2014 whereupon resolution
to boycott judicial work of Court of Informant – Presiding Officer was
passed from 24.4.2014 to 30.04.2014. For this reason, Informant –
Presiding Officer got annoyed with Contemnor 6 and included his name
in the present criminal contempt matter. On 20.11.2014, when the
incident took place, Contemnor 6 was in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate in Case No.2052 of 2013, Roop Singh Vs. Rakesh & Ors.,
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kalpi, District
Jalaun. Contemnor 6 is not shown in the video footage and none has
named him except Informant-Presiding Officer. Contemnor 6 is in legal
practice for the last 40 years and all employees are well known by him
by his name and fact. If Contemnor 6 would have been present in the
Court, then the employees of Court would have immediately identify
him and told his name.
29. Contemnor 9 in his separate affidavit/reply has stated that
neither in any report of S.O. (Vig.) nor in video recording there is
anything to implicate him and there is nothing to show his presence in
the Court. Further video recording is not admissible in evidence as
there is no voice hence it is a tempered evidence. When the incident
occurred, Contemnor 9 was in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate
and was coming from that Court. Then again some allegations are
made against Informant – Presiding Officer.
30. Contemnors 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10, have filed their replies, though
separately, but taken stand similar to the reply given by Contemnor 1
hence we are not repeating the same.
31. When the matter was taken up for arguments, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for Contemnors, except Contemnor 5, stated that
defence taken by Contemnors in their affidavit may be perused by the
Court. No argument with regard to legal or preliminary objection has
been advanced and instead it is said that entire material on record
show that even if some incident has taken place on the fateful day,
advocates are not solely responsible for the same but there was ample
contribution on the part of Informant – Presiding Officer. It is in these
facts and circumstances, Court may examine the matter and take a
decision so as to do justice throughout.
32. Learned Senior Advocate fairly stated that being an officer of
Court, it is the bounden duty of all advocates to ensure that majesty
and authority of Court is maintained by all concerned. Whatever may
be the reason, no one has any justification to create a scene in Court,
disturb court proceedings, raise slogans and address Court in an
abusive manner and all these things are unpardonable. Since these
activities are found to lower down authority of Court in the eyes of
general public, it may have a serious impact on the very authority of
institution. People have great faith and confidence in the institution of
justice. Officers of the Court i.e. advocates, therefore, are duty bound to
maintain absolute dignity, majesty and authority of the Court and
behave in a proper disciplined manner. Even if there is some wanting
conduct on the part of Informant – Presiding Officer at a particular point
of time, the remedy lies elsewhere but not by creating a scene in Court
i.e. by destroying the items kept in Court or by showing disrespect to
the Chair. When a contemptuous conduct is shown in Court, it is not to
show disrespect or to lower down authority of an individual but the
institution and the Court itself, therefore, anybody, if has adopted ways
and means having effect of lowering down authority of Court, is open to
face appropriate action under the Provisions of Act, 1971. Having said
so, learned Senior Advocate, however, submitted that all Contemnors
implicated in this matter are not guilty of allegations levelled against
them, and, in any case, there is no sufficient evidence to show that all
ten Contemnors were present at the time of incident and did whatever
they are charged for.
33. It is pointed out that Contemnors 1, 3 and 4 are visible in video
recording and have also been named by Informant – Presiding Officer.
Contemnors 5 and 6 are not visible in video recording but named by
Informant – Presiding Officer. Contemnors 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are neither
visible in video recording nor named by Informant – Presiding Officer.
34. On the request of Court, Contemnors have also identified other
advocates visible in video recording, who are not named by Informant –
Presiding Officer and, therefore, proceedings have not been initiated
against them, and, they are; Navneet Sagar Pathak, Shanker Lal
Tarsolia, Ram Lakhan Singh Chauhan and Upendra Pratap Singh.
35. With regard to authenticity of video recording, learned Senior
Advocate has submitted that; length of recording is 31.12 minutes with
gap of 7 – 8 minutes. It is in three parts i.e. (i) prior to entry of
Advocates; (ii) on and after entry of Advocates; and (iii) after alleged
incident showing peaceful functioning of Court. First part shows broken
window glass panes lying on the floor. video recording is personal
property of Informant – Presiding Officer, prepared by himself, on his
laptop fitted with camera; It is soundless/silent video does not show
either Informant – Presiding Officer or alleged manhandling, assault
etc.; The other persons visible in video recording, also identified by
Contemnors, are, Sanjeev Gurjar, Advocate, Additional District
Government Counsel, A.K.Tewari, Senior Prosecuting Officer, five male
and one female police personal, few clients and accused persons,
peon of the Court. In the third part of video recording i.e. after the
incident, it also shows presence of one Sub-Inspector, Gunner of
District Judge and few Policemen with Dandas.
36. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Advocate, appointed by court for
assistance, contended that incident of forcible entry in the Court room,
slogans shouting, abuse and manhandling is proved and presence of
most of the Contemnors, in particular all Contemnors except
Contemnors 5 and 6 is also well evidenced from record. Looking to the
nature of conduct shown by Contemnors in Court not only charge of
criminal contempt is well proved but they do not deserve any
sympathetic consideration and instead most severe punishment
deserve to be awarded so that in future no one else may dare to show
such conduct.
37. The facts narrated above and record at least show undoubtedly
that a group of advocates led by Contemnor 1 created a scene in the
Court of Informant – Presiding Officer on 20.11.2014 in which some
property of Court was damaged, Presiding Officer was manhandled
and some advocates also sustained injuries. Informant – Presiding
Officer though has named, before S.O. (Vig.), Contemnor 1 to 6 but in
video recording made available to the S.O. (Vig.) and viewed by us
also, presence of Contemnors 1, 3 and 4 is clearly visible and
established. Besides, report shows that Contemnors 7, 8, 9 and 10
sustained injuries in the incident, which took place on 20.11.2014. In
reply to the charge, all these Contemnors have filed their separate
affidavits but we find not even a single averment or assertion that these
Contemnors did not sustain injury at all and if they sustained injuries,
how and in what manner, and kind of injuries they sustained, is also not
38. One Constable Abir Singh, Court Moharir, had also sustained
injuries when he tried to save Informant – Presiding Officer.
39. Though a technically objection has been raised that video
recording is not admissible in evidence or that it was a private property
but suffice it to mention that criminal contempt proceeding initiated by
Court are not to be proceeded like a criminal trial where provisions of
Code of Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act are applicable. These
statutes are not applicable in contempt proceedings. The basic purpose
of entire procedure is to find out whether Contemnors have shown any
such conduct, which amounts to ‘criminal contempt’ of Court and for
that purpose manner in which evidence has been collected is not
relevant but it is the substance and creditworthiness of evidence which
can be and has to be seen.
40. Damage of CPU, pen holder and window panes is well
established. Nobody has either denied above damage nor has
attempted to explain the same.
41. Contemnor 1 and some other advocates had some complaint
against Informant-Presiding Officer. They repeatedly participated in
resolutions of Bar Association for boycotting/abstaining Court of
Informant-Presiding Officer. This is well admitted. Contemnor 1 has
specifically pleaded that Informant-Presiding Officer, even if honest,
that does not give him any licence to misbehave. Meaning thereby,
integrity of Informant-Presiding Officer has not been doubted even by
Contemnor 1, who has led entire episode to fight with InformantPresiding
Officer, with other colleagues and have shown no misery in
using all contemptuous words against Informant-Presiding Officer.
42. The defence, put up by Contemnors, is quite natural since it is
not expected that they would accept guilt silently and without any
protest. But factum that integrity of Informant-Presiding Officer has not
been doubted even by Contemnor 1 and also evidence collected by
S.O. (Vig.) showing that some advocates including officer bearers of
Bar Association wanted favourable orders or favourable treatment in
Court of Informant-Presiding Officer and having failed in their attempt,
all these activities was done, show that there was an intentional and
deliberate attempt either to knee down Informant-Presiding Officer or to
get him removed by way of his transfer elsewhere. This is a conduct,
whether shown by all Contemnors or some of them, but, seriously
objectionable as it, ex facie, constitute ‘criminal contempt’ of Court. It
satisfies all ingredients of definition of ‘criminal contempt’ as defined
under Section 2(c) of Act, 1971.
43. This is also unfortunate that Contemnors and their colleagues
got encouraged in going to this extent due to, either lack of appropriate
administrative steps taken by District Judge or due to his silent support
and encouragement. The reasons given by Informant-Presiding Officer
with regard to apathy on the part of the then District Judge has not
been found without any basis by S.O. (Vig.). However, in the present
contempt, we are confined ourselves only to the question of ‘criminal
contempt’ by Contemnors and not to other aspect of the matter.
44. Before proceeding further, we may consider some legal issues in
the matter. One of the contention is that incident, if has actually taken
place, amounts to an offence and, therefore, contempt proceedings
would not lie.
45. Similar issue was considered in State of M.P. Vs. Revashankar,
AIR 1959 SC 102 in which Court said that an aspersion cast upon
Court or Presiding Officer, sitting in a Court, is much more than a mere
insult to learned Presiding Officer. In effect, it amounts to scandalize
the Court in a way so as to distrust in popular mind and impair
confidence of people in Courts. Therefore, 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.
46. 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, 10
Calcutta 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”.
47. 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.
48. It has also been argued that incident was aggravated by
Informant-Presiding Officer, who got down from dias and indulged in
shuffling with Advocates. In this regard we have been taken through
report of S.O.(Vig.). The submission is attractive but we failed to
understand how one can expect a person, who is facing a charged
atmosphere, having several advocates before him abusing, shouting,
throwing pen-holders, CPU in Court room, damaging glass panes and
attempting to hold him, will silently suffer entire incident and shall not
show even a minimum possible resistance, which a normal human
being could have done in such atmosphere. This may be seen by some
as counter attack. We have to look into it visualising that situation and a
normal behaviour expected from a person of ordinary prudence facing
such a situation. The advocates’ attitude, who forcibly entered Court
room was clearly hostile and threatening. Their anger is writ large from
the fact that some Court and members of Bar, besides Police
Constable, also who tried to defend Informant-Presiding Officer,
sustained injuries. If, in such an atmosphere, Informant-Presiding
Officer also hit one or two advocates an attempt to protect himself, it is
difficult to hold that it is a case of attempt of manhandling by InformantPresiding
Officer and not an attempt on his part of possible selfdefence.
We find no reason to take this act on the part of InformantPresiding
Officer, even if correct, to mitigate in any way the act of
“criminal contempt” of Contemnors, which is a multifarious and
multifaceted act of lowering down authority of Court and to scandalize
49. The next objection is with regard to video recording. Though it
has been pleaded that video recording may possibly be tempered etc.,
but no such Expert’s opinion has been brought on record though copy
of video recording was also made available to all Contemnors. The only
objection raised is that recording, made available, has no sound.
However, whatever is visible itself is sufficient to give an idea about the
incident, which had taken place in Court. It is fortified with other
material on record. It cannot be said that what is being depicted in
video recording is incorrect or show inconsistency so as to suffice to
disbelieve the very incident.
50. Though we have already held that in contempt proceedings,
provisions of IPC and Evidence Act, as such, are not applicable but
even if applicable, we find that scientific and electronic evidence is
admissible in the light of Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
51. The incident of forcible entry into Court room, disturbance in
Court room, damage to Court property, abuse, assault and
manhandling of Informant-Presiding Officer, from the discussions made
above, is well established. The presence and participation of
Contemnors 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 is also established. It is really a
disturbing case where Officers of Court had created such an abhorrent
scene in Court for some petty personal gains or otherwise.
52. We are of the view that above act and conduct constitute
“Criminal Contempt”, as stated, and charge stands well established
against Contemnors 1, 3, 4, and 7 to 10. We hold them guilty of
criminal contempt.
53. We may notice at this stage that Jalaun at Orai is not a very old
District Judgeship. Number of Judicial Officers is much less comparing
to number of advocates practicing thereat, which is about 600 to 700.
Judicial Officers are regularly transferred, therefore, their tenure at a
station is short but Class III and IV staff, normally remain posted in
same district, are always in constant touch with members of Bar and for
various reasons, different relations develop among them. We find that
whenever such an incident has taken place, advocates in general get
united and evidence against their conduct becomes a difficult task for
the reason that neither advocates nor even lower staff is readily
available or dare to give evidence in respect of incident, if had taken
place in the Court.
54. Jalaun is a place where number of criminal cases are very high
in comparison to civil litigation. Judicial Officers work under great stress
from day one, when they deal with applications filed under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. or consider bail applications, what to talk of substantive
trial. Whenever an Officer, who is tough in the sense that he is known
for his hard decisions in criminal matters, advocates find him mostly
inconvenient and relentless efforts are made to get such an officer
transferred at the earliest or to get subdued.
55. Looking to the crime control machinery and its attitude in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, we have no hesitation in observing that our
Judicial Officers in Subordinate Courts, who want to discharge their
duties with great devotion and integrity, find a very difficult task to deal
with situation like the one, we are confronted with. That is one of the
major reason that we find a large number of cases of criminal contempt
across the State. The Bench presided over by one of us (Sudhir
Agarwal,J) has dealt with more than fifty such a cases decided finally in
the last one and half year.
56. It is the constitutional obligation of High Court to protect and save
honour, dignity and authority, not only of subordinate Court but Judicial
Officers also, manning the same. It is also our duty to ensure fearless
atmosphere in which they may function without any cause of
apprehension. Foundation of judicial system is based on independence
of those, who man it. This can be ensured by providing a safe, well
protected and well guarded working atmosphere to Judicial Officers
working in subordinate Courts so as to ensure work with desired
devotion and integrity. No one, whether a litigant or an advocate or any
one else can be allowed to lead a demonstration so as to tarnish and
destroy system of administration of justice by vilification of a Judge.
57. It is said that Judges need no protection. They are well capable
of taking care themselves but when question of assault, manhandling
arises, where an individual gets out-classed by large group of persons
engaged in such activities, it is not judicial capability of such individual
but on the spot capability of those who had indulged in such an
activities, which has to be taken care, else it will be difficult for us to
ensure a fair, unbiased and independent functioning of a Court of law.
We have to take care of such a situation.
58. In this case we are really shocked and disturbed to see that
officer responsible for appropriate action i.e. District Judge himself
failed in tackling the situation.
59. In Jennison Vs. Baker 1972 (1) All ER 997 (CA), it was
observed, “… The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those
who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope”.
60. Contemnors though have made statement of apology also in
their affidavits, but, it is not only conditional but an attempt to avoid any
sentence, in case case they are held guilty. It does not appear to be a
bona fide repentance on their part showing an attitude of feeling guilty
and forwarding an assurance that they are, by heart, intends to purge,
assuring not to repeat the same in future. It is not a technical regret
/apology, which a contemnor is expected to offer to Court. It is not a
weapon of defence to purge guilty of the wrong, one has committed. It
is not intended to operate as an universal panacea, but it is intended to
be evidence of real contriteness.
61. In Mulk Raj Vs. State of Punjab 1972(3) SCC 839, Court held
that apology is an act of contrition. Unless an apology is offered at the
earliest opportunity and in good grace, apology is shorn of penitence. If
apology is offered at a time when Contemnor finds that the Court is
going to impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and it
becomes an act of cringing coward.
62. In the present case, on one hand, Contemnors appears to have
tendered apology but simultaneously have made serious aspersions
against Informant-Presiding Officer and Court, and, have pleaded all
defence for their deeds. The apology, therefore, being shallow, artificial
and lacking bona fide, cannot be accepted.
63. Now, coming to the question of sentence and punishment, we
find that role of individual Contemnors is not to be seen for the reason
that in collusion with common intention, they have caused incident by
forcibly entering Court room, disturbing Court proceedings, damaging
Court property, abusing and assaulting Judicial Officer. Since all the
Contemnors have participated with a common intention, factum that
any individual has actually abused or assaulted Informant-Presiding
Officer or not, is not material, but every Contemnor is equally
responsible and guilty of committing criminal contempt of Court and
responsibility of all Contemnors is equal.
64. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances, we award
punishment of six months simple imprisonment upon Contemnors 1, 3,
4, 7, 8 9 and 10 and fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only).
65. In order to ensure smooth functioning of Court, we also direct
that Contemnors 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall not enter Court premises
of Jalaun at Orai for a period of one year, which shall commence from
23rd September, 2016. Further, conduct and attitude of Contemnors
after expiry of aforesaid period, if they start practice of Law in
Judgeship Jalaun at Orai, shall under constant watch of District Judge,
Jalaun at Orai for a period of three years and if he finds any untoward
activity on the part of Contemnors, he shall report to this Court
66. So far as Contemnors 2, 5 and 6 are concerned, they are held
not guilty and contempt proceedings initiated against them are dropped
and they are discharged.
67. Accordingly, Contempt Application is partly allowed in the
aforesaid manner.
(Shashi Kant, J.) (Sudhir Agarwal J.)
Order Date :- 21.09.2016
Court No. – 34
Applicant :- In Re
Opposite Party :- Pradhuman Kumar Srivastava Advocate
Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C. Dwivedi,A.K. Srivastava,Avanish
Mishra,B.N. Singh,S. Niranjan,Suresh Gupta,U.K. Saxena
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon’ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. After delivery of the judgment, Contemnors 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10
state that sentence in their case may be deferred to enable them to
avail remedy of appeal under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. We, therefore, suspend our order of punishment of sentence of
simple imprisonment made against Contemnors 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10
for a period of two months to enable them to file appeal under Section
19, if so advised. In case no appeal is filed, and, if filed, and no
otherwise order is passed by Appellate Court, the aforesaid
Contemnors shall surrender themselves after expiry of the period of
two months i.e. on 23.11.2016 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun
at Orai, who shall take appropriate steps for getting Contemnors serve
sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them under this order.
3. So far as amount of fine is concerned, Contemnors may pay the
same either in this Court or with District Judge, Jalaun at Orai or with
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai within three months.
(Shashi Kant, J.) (Sudhir Agarwal J.)
Order Date :- 21.9.2016

4 comments on Undoubtedly no crowed may be allowed to subvert the process of court of law and court judgement is applauding

  1. Judicial Officers work under great stress from day one, when they deal with applications filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or consider bail applications, what to talk of substantive trial. Whenever an Officer, who is tough in the sense that he is known for his hard decisions in criminal matters, advocates find him mostly inconvenient and relentless efforts are made to get such an officer transferred at the earliest or to get subdued. 55. Looking to the crime control machinery and its attitude in the State of Uttar Pradesh, we have no hesitation in observing that our Judicial Officers in Subordinate Courts, who want to discharge their duties with great devotion and integrity, find a very difficult task to deal with situation like the one, we are confronted with. That is one of the major reason that we find a large number of cases of criminal contempt across the State.

  2. The aforesaid Contemnors shall surrender themselves after expiry of the period of two months i.e. on 23.11.2016 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai, who shall take appropriate steps for getting Contemnors serve sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them under this order. 3.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: