Court on its own motion vs Ashok Gandhi

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

Archna Puri, Sub JudgecumJudicial Magistrate, Jalandhar had sent communication to the District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby she made serious allegations against the respondent. As such proceedings for contempt have been initiated by the learned single Judge vide his order dated December 2, 1994. The respondent who was present in the Court had accepted notice. The learned Single Judge had directed that as it was a criminal contempt, the matter was to be considered by the Division Bench as required under Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

The respondent had tendered an unqualified apology in his affidavits. The Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 10.7.1995 observed that the apology tendered by the respondent was not genuine. The District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana, was directed to record evidence in the case and submit the same to this Court within six months. The parties were directed to appear before him on 18.7.1995.

In pursuance of this Court''s order dated 5.12.1995, the District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana had recorded the evidence and submitted the same to this Court. Shri R.K. Battas, Advocate was asked to assist this Court.

Sh. R.C. Kathuria, District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana had examined as many as three prosecution witnesses, namely Smt. Archna Puri, Sub JudgecumJudicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, S/Sh. Sarabjit Singh and Tarlochan Singh employees of District Court, Jalandhar. On behalf of respondents S/Sh. Gurdip Singh Sachdeva, Advocate, Ashok Gandhi, Advocate, Ram Parshad Bhanotra, Assistant Superintendent Central Jail, Jalandhar, Bind Kumar Additional Ahlmad, Des Raj, Misc. English Clerk, Sessions Court, Jalandhar, Narinder Singh, Advocate, Anant Arora, Advocate and K.C. Sharma, Advocate, were examined.

When this case came up for hearing on 27.1.1997, Sh. P.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the Contemner contended that Ashok Gandhi is ready to tender unconditional apology in the Court. This Court directed Mrs. Archana Puri, Additional Senior Sub Judge to be present in person officially in this Court on 3.2.1997.

The complaint of Mrs. Archna Puri, Sub Judge IInd ClasscumJudicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar which was addressed to the District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar reads as under :

"I have the honour to state that on 5.5.1994 Shri Ashok Gandhi, Advocate moved an application for bail on behalf of Parveen Kumar son of Wadhawa Ram resident of Urban Estate PhaseI, Jalandhar, in case FIR No. 22/94 under Sections 323/324/325/326/34 IPC Police Station Jalandhar Cantt, for his release on bail. On a query as to whether any other application for bail has been moved by the accused which may be pending in any other Court. He informed that the bail application is pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar which is fixed for 7.5.1994. When enquired as to why this fact has not been disclosed in the bail application, then he told that it was only an omission and gave a note to that effect in his own handwriting on the application that was moved by him. APP for the State was present at that time and he sought time as he wanted to confirm whether the offence under Section 326 IPC has been converted into an offence under Section 324 IPC after perusing the police file and the consideration of the application was adjourned to 6.5.1994.

Today at about 3.30 p.m., after hearing the learned APP and counsel for the accused and perusing the bail application, I rejected the bail application by a judicial order. Immediately when the order was pronounced, Shri Ashok Gandhi, Advocate, counsel for the accused on hearing the adverse order got furious and started shouting that the Court has passed the illegal order and used contemptuous and derogatory remarks against the Court and further threatened that he will move the High Court that such like officers are made to sit in the Chair to pass such like orders. He further shouted that I should mention in the order that the case diary has been perused and he threatened that he will be moving the High Court and in that event, I will deny that the case diaries have been perused. I made him to understand politely that he can challenge the judicial order at a proper forum. He further stated that the Magistrate has abused her powers and has passed a wrong and illegal order and it is a "TAMASHA". He was further reminded that his remarks tantamount to contempt of Court on which he became more infuriated and remarked that he has seen so many contempts and he bothers nothing for that and he threatened that he well see as to how I remain in the chair. I kept great restraint and before I could take further action, he left the Court with the intervention of Advocates and other litigants shouting and abusing.

The action of uttering and shouting the words by Shri Ashok Gandhi, Advocate amounted to an insult and interruption in discharge of my judicial proceedings. The above named Advocate has shown an open insult and disrespect to the Court and his remarks amount to scandalous attack on the Court. The action on the part of the said Advocate tantamounts to serious contempt of Court as he has uttered the above detailed words in the presence of Advocates, litigants and staff members of the Court with an intent to undermine the authority of the Court, scandcalise me and tried to interfere in the judicial proceedings.

The incident and the matter is being brought to your kind notice with a request that the matter be reported to the Hon''ble High Court for initiating contempt proceedings against Shri Ashok Gandhi, Advocate as per the provisions of law."

Before arriving at a conclusion, it will be worthwhile to scan the evidence brought on record.

Smt. Archna Puri, while appearing as PW1 in her deposition has stated that bail application was moved on 5.5.1994 in case bearing FIR No. 22, dated 29.4.1994 registered under Sections 323/324/325/326 read with Section 34 IPC with Police Station Jalandhar Cantt. before her by Shri Ashok Gandhi, Advocate on behalf of accused Parveen Kumar. She perused the case diaries and dismissed the bail application vide order dated 6.5.1994, which was dictated to her steno, Shri Sarabjit Singh and the same is Exhibit P3. It reads as under :

"Present : APP for the State

Counsel for the accused.

The learned APP says that offence under Section 326 IPC has been converted into 324 IPC. Counsel for the accused has averred in the bail application that the bail application under Section 323/324/325/326 read with Section 34 IPC is pending in the Court of Ld. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in regard to the same accused in FIR No. 22 of 1994. The application which is pending in the superior Court will decide the fate of the present application. As such, the application is dismissed as the same is not maintainable at this stage.

Sd/

Judl. Magistrate 1st Class

Jalandhar "

Dated 6.5.1994

She further maintained that when she had dictated the above order to her steno, Shri Sarabjit Singh, Shri Ashok Gandhi, respondent got furious and started shouting that Court has passed illegal order. He further used contemptuous and derogatory remarks as "Ae Tamasha Hai", "he would see to it as to how I remain in chair". He further shouted at her and threatened her that he would move the High Court that such like officers are made to sit in the chair to pass illegal orders. Further, according to her, Shri Ashok Gandhi abused her in the name of sister. She restrained herself and further informed him that he can challenge the judicial order. She also reminded him that his remarks amounted to contempt of Court, upon which he got more infuriated and stated that he bothers nothing for the contempt. Thereafter, she went to her chamber and sent a detailed report on 6.5.1994 Exhibit P5 addressed to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.

Shri Sarabjit Singh, PW2 in his statement has stated that after hearing arguments in the bail application, Smt. Archana Puri, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, dismissed the bail application. Thereafter, Shri Ashok Gandhi started saying in the Court to the Presiding Officer that order passed by her is wrong. Shri Ashok Gandhi also stated to Ms. Archna Puri that he would make a complaint to the High Court that such officers are allowed to function in the Court. Shri Ashok Gandhi also stated to her that he would see that how she remains in the chair. Shri Ashok Gandhi again stated to Ms. Archna Puri that her order was wrong because it should have been mentioned in the order that case file had been perused by her. Ms. Archna Puri told Shri Ashok Gandhi that whatever order was to be passed by her, had been passed and in case he wants to challenge the same, he could move the proper forum. On this, Shri Ashok Gandhi got annoyed. Shri Gandhi stated to her that she has misused her powers because she had passed the wrong order and made it ''Tamasha''. Upon this, Ms. Archana Puri stated to Shri Gandhi, Advocate that remarks made by him amount to contempt of Court. Shri Ashok Gandhi stated to her that he had seen many contempt of courts and he does not care for anybody. He again stated that he was not merely dependent on the profession and had many other resources of income. Whatever was stated by Shri Gandhi was dictated by Ms. Archna Puri. In his crossexamination, this witness had denied the presence of S/Sh. Gurdeep Singh Sachdeva, M.P. Bagga, Dina Nath Kamboj, Narinder Singh and Sanjiv Bansal, Advocates. He has further stated that he had not heard Shri Ashok Gandhi addressing to the Judge that it be recorded in the order that offences in question were bailable. This witness has also stated that after the order was pronounced, there were heated arguments.

Shri Tarlochan Singh PW3 has supported the version of Sarabjit Singh, PW2 in pith and substance.

In order to counter the version of both the witnesses, Shri Gurdeep Singh, RW1 testified that on 6.5.1994, he entered the court room of Mrs. Archna Puri at 3.30 p.m. and noticed Shri Ashok Gandhi Advocate arguing the bail matter. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor made his submissions. After hearing them, the bail application was declined by Mrs. Archna Puri and at that time, Shri Ashok Gandhi represented to the Court that offence was bailable as it had been converted from Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC and for that reason, his client had a right of bail. Upon this, the Presiding Officer stated that it was her sweet will and whatever she thought fit had been recorded in the order. He further stated that Shri Ashok Gandhi again said to the Presiding Officer that his contention be incorporated in the order. At this stage, the Presiding Officer stated that it amounted to contempt of Court, but Shri Ashok Gandhi stated in reply that if fighting for the client''s right was contempt, then he was prepared to face it. Thereafter, he and Shri Narinder Singh persuaded Shri Ashok Gandhi and took him out from the Court. According to him, Shri Ashok Gandhi had not used any abusive language and had not lost his temper at that time. In his crossexamination, he could not say whether Mrs. Archna Puri had made the report on that very day to the District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. He further could not say whether Shri Ashok Gandhi had made any complaint to the High Court, though he has stated that he would report the matter to the High Court. He admitted that steno of the Court was present, while sitting on the seat, but the Reader of the Court was preparing the statements sitting by the side of Ahlmad of the Court. At that time, Shri Gurinder Singh, Execution Clerk was sitting on the seat of Reader. He also admitted that Mrs. Archna Puri had put a query as to whether bail application was pending in Sessions Court relating to the matter. He denied the version of the incident as testified by Mrs. Archna Puri in her deposition.

Shri Ashok Gandhi, RW2 has stated that he holds the judicial officers and the judicial system in the high esteem. He was engaged to represent accused Parveen Kumar in the bail application. Initially, he had moved the anticipatory bail in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 30.4.1994, which was fixed for 2.5.1994, on which date, arrest of the accused was stayed till 10.5.1994. In between, the accused was produced in the Court of Mrs. Archana Puri, Judicial Magistrate on 2.5.1994 at 2.30 p.m. He had moved the bail application, which is Exhibit P7. At the same time, he admitted that this application was not signed by him. On 2.5.1994, he moved the regular bail application on behalf of accused Parveen Kumar in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, for which notice was given to the Prosecution for 7.5.1994. He has also drafted an application addressed to Chief Medical Officer stating therein that injury had been declared grievous in medicolegal report of the injured, but was in fact simple and not grievous injury. The Board of Doctors so constituted declared injury No. 1 as simple and opinion of the Board was sent to the police station by the Chief Medical Officer, Jalandhar and this fact was also recorded in the Daily Diary. He had also incorporated the note in the bail application in his own handwriting that application for bail under Section 326 IPC was pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and admitted his note, Exhibit P2 in this regard. The relevant extract of his statement is as under :

"Mrs. Archna Puri rejected the bail application. She had examined the case diaries before rejecting the bail application. After rejection of the bail application I stated to the Judge that liberty of the person is involved and my submissions must be incorporated in the order. The Presiding Officer informed me that it was her sweet will as to whether she should record my submissions or not. Upon this, I again requested the Presiding Officer to incorporate my arguments as the liberty of the man was involved and in bailable offences, a man cannot be confined in jail. Then the Presiding Officer shouted at me that in case, I would repeat again my arguments, she would move for contempt. I again stated "Judge Sahib liberty of the man is involved. If for pressing for the fundamental right of any person is contempt, then I am ready to face the contempt." The Presiding Officer then stated to me that I can file an appeal if so liked and I stated in reply that I would bring this matter to the notice of the higher authorities. At the time of the above incident, Shri Gurdip Singh Sachdeva, Shri Sanjiv Bansal, Shri Dina Nath Kamboj, Shri M.P. Bagga and Shri Narinder Singh, Advocates were present in the court room but I do not remember their names now. Shri Sanjiv Bansal was assisting the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the complainant.

Shri Ashok Gandhi has denied that he had used the word ''Tamasha''. He has also denied that he had stated to the Presiding Officer that she had passed illegal order. He had also denied that he had used any derogatory language against the Presiding Officer.

Shri Narinder Singh, RW6 has stated that after the Presiding Officer declined the bail, Shri Ashok Gandhi represented before her that his contentions be recorded in the order, upon which, Mrs. Archna Puri remarked that she would hold Shri Ashok Gandhi under contempt, if he continued stressing further arguments before her. It has also come in the statement of this witness that he persuaded Shri Ashok Gandhi to come out of the Court room.

Shri Anant Arora, RW7 has denied the occurrence in the Court of Mrs. Archna Puri on 6.5.1994.

Shri K.C. Sharma, RW8 has stated that nothing had happened on 6.5.1994 in the Court of Mrs. Archna Puri.

After discussing the evidence in detail, the matter has to be examined as to whether Contemner Ashok Gandhi is guilty of contempt of Court. Section 2(a) (b) and (c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to it as ''Act'') defines the contempt of Court as under :

"2. Definitions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires :

(a) "contempt of court" means Civil contempt or criminal contempt;

(b) "Civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court;

(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which

(i) scandalises or tends to schandalise, 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 proceedings; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner".

It will be worthwhile to notice the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in M.B. Sanghi, Advocate v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, AIR 1991 SC 1834, wherein it was observed as under :

"Where the contemner, a practising lawyer on Judge''s declining to grant ad interim injunction had made an attack on the Judge which was disparaging in character and derogatory to Judge''s dignity and would vitally shake the confidence of the public in him and the aspersions made by the contemner had the effect of scandalising the court in such a way as to create distrust in the people''s mind and impair confidence of the people in Court, the contemner was guilty of having committed the contempt of court under Section 2(c)(i).

In K. Mohammad Ali v. C.N. Prasannan, 1994 Suplementary Supreme Court Cases, 509, while arguing the case, the counsel raised his voice unusually high to the annoyance of the Magistrate and used derogatory language against the Magistrate before whom he conducted the trial of the accused. His conviction and sentence for contempt was accordingly upheld.

In Re : Vinay Chandra Mishra, Judgment Today 1995(2) SC 587, the Apex Court has made noteworthy observations for conduct and behaviour to be maintained in Court, which reads as under :

(i) Normally, no Judge takes action for in facie curiae contempt against the lawyer unless he is impelled to do so. It is not the heat generated in the arguments but the language used, the tone and the manner in which it is expressed and the intention behind using it which determine whether it was calculated to insult, show disrespect to, overbear and overawe the court and to threaten and obstruct the course of justice.

(ii) No one expects a lawyer to be subservient to the Court while presenting his case and not to put forward his arguments merely because the Court is against him. In fact, that is the moment when he is expected to put forth his best effort to persuade the Court. However, if in spite of it, the lawyer finds that the Court is against him, he is not expected to be discourteous to the Court or to fling hot words or epithets or use disrespectful, derogatory or threatening language or exhibit temper which has the effect of overbearing the Court. Cases are won and lost in the court daily. One or the other side is bound to lose. The remedy of the losing lawyer or the litigant is to prefer an appeal against the decision and not to indulge in a running battle of words with the Court. That is the least that is expected of a lawyer. Silence on some occasions is also an argument. The lawyer is not entitled to indulge in unbecoming conduct either by showing his temper or using unbecoming language.

(iii) Brazenness is not outspokenness and arrogance is not fearlessness. Use of intemperate language is not assertion of right nor is a threat an argument. Humility is not servility and courtesy and politeness are not lack of dignity. Selfrestraint and respectful attitude towards the Court, presentation of correct facts and law with a balanced mind and without overstatement, suppression, distortion or embellishment are requisites of good advocacy. A lawyer has to be a gentleman first. His most valuable asset is the respect and goodwill he enjoys among his colleagues and in the Court.

In Re; Ajay Kumar Pandey case, 1997(1) RCR (Crl.) 511: Judgments Today, 1996(10) SC 179 it was held as under :

"All the Courts, be they the lower or the highest, function for the noble cause of dispensing justice. Since they have to decide litigation between two contesting parties, it is obvious that they have to have full freedom and independence in settling the litigation. The Presiding Officers who run the Courts and conduct the proceedings therein have to act fearlessly. Any action on the part of any person or litigant or lawyer, which tends to interfere or obstruct the process of justice, has to be deprecated so that the proceedings may be held in an orderly fashion and everyone who participates in those proceedings may have the feeling of liberty to address the Court for proper adjudication of his case."

After having given thoughtful consideration to the matter, hearing the parties, in view of the evidence discussed above and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we would have held Ashok Gandhi guilty for committing contempt of Court and sentenced him but since Ashok Gandhi by way of affidavit has tendered unqualified apology and has thrown himself at the mercy of the Court and Smt. Archna Puri, the complainant and Mr. R.K. Battas, Advocate have also expressed their desire that the unqualified apology tendered by Ashok Gandhi be accepted and the matter be closed, the object sought in the matter has been achieved. Ashok Gandhi has not only tendered unqualified apology and thrown himself at the mercy of the Court but has shown great repentance on his part. If one is held guilty for committing contempt of Court, the Court has three options i.e. either to sentence him to imprisonment, fine him or may or may not accept the unqualified apology.

In this case, in view of what has been discussed above, we accept the unqualified apology tendered by Ashok Gandhi and discharge the rule against him with the hope that he will not repeat the same in future.