In Re : Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava, Advocate

Heard learned A.G.A. and Sri Vashistha Tiwari, Sri Hemant Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the contemnor. The contemnor Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava, Advocate is present in Court, the proceedings of the contempt have been initiated on the basis of the reference made by Sri Piyush Verma, Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-1, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna through the District and Sessions Judge, Padrauna.

After considering the reference, this matter was placed before Hon''ble Krishna Murari, J, the Administrative Judge of District Kushi Nagar, His Lordship has been pleased to pass the following order on 22.11.2010 :

Place before the Hon''ble Chief Justice with the recommendation. In the facts criminal contempt is not liable to be initiated

With the above recommendation this matter was placed before the Hon''ble Chief Justice, His Lordship passed the following order on 25.11.2010:

Considering the judgment in the case of Ex.Capt.Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India ( 2003) 2 SCC, the learned Judge may re-consider the issue.

Thereafter, this matter was again placed before the Hon''ble Krishna Murari, J., the Administrative Judge, His Lordship passed the following order on 9.12.2010 :-

Re-considered in the light of observations of the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India. Place before the Hon''ble Chief Justice with recommendation that proceedings of Criminal Contempt are liable to be initiated against the charged Advocate.

After recommendation of the Hon''ble Administrative Judge, the matter was again placed before Hon''ble the Chief Justice, His Lordship has approved to place this matter before the bench having the jurisdiction of criminal contempt.

The reference made by Sri Piyush Verma, Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC-1, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna shows that on 9.8.2010 the lawyers were abstaining from the work in the courts in pursuance of the resolution passed by Bar Association, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna, on such call given by the Bar Council of U.P. No lawyer was appearing in the court but the contemnor Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava appeared in the court who extended the threat to Presiding Officer by uttering that my client would have been released without verifying his sureties and the Presiding Officer was not having any jurisdiction to verify the sureties, it was also asked by Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava, Advocate that in case his work is not done today, the complaint shall be made today before the District Judge and Hon''ble the High Court. After considering the reference and contents made therein, the notice was issued to the contemnor Sri Jagdish Chandra Srivastava Advocate by another bench of this Court on 29.l.2011 to show cause as to why the contempt proceedings may not be initiated against him.

In pursuance of the order dated 29.1.2011, the contemnor appeared before this Court and moved an application dated 28.3.2011 with a prayer to exempt his personal appearance and to drop the proceedings of the contempt and to discharge the notice issued against him. In support of this application, an affidavit has also been filed by the contemnor, on this application, the order dated 28.3.2011 was passed for hearing on framing of charges. Today an application has also been filed along with an affidavit of the contemnor praying therein that the paragraph Nos. 18 and 20 of the affidavit filed on 28.3.2011 may be deleted. The paragraph No. 18 of the affidavit dated 28.3.2011 was with regard to allegation made against the Presiding Officer that on 9.8.2010, the deponent was restrained and obstructed by the learned Presiding Officer in due participation in judicial proceeding by threatening him of punitive action for violating strike call which is a contempt of court committed by the Presiding Officer himself. The Paragraph 20 of this affidavit is with regard to apology. The application filed by contemnor not to read the paragraphs 18 and 20 of the affidavit dated 28.3.2011 is allowed.

By filing the affidavit dated 16.1.2012 the contemnor has preferred not to tender any type of apology but to contest the case on its merit.

After hearing counsel appearing on behalf of the contemnor and learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the reference made by Sri Piyush Verma, Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-1, Kushi Nagar and from perusal of the definition u/s 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as follows :

(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 proceedings; or

iii.interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;

It appears that the conduct of the contemnor was to scandalise the court, interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings and interfere in the administration of justice which constitute, the criminal contempt as defined u/s 2 ( c ) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. At this stage, there is no good ground to drop the proceedings of the Contempt or discharge the notice issued to the contemnor, therefore, such prayer is refused.

Put up this matter after mid-day recess for framing of the charge, the petitioner shall appear in person again after mid-day recess.Accordingly, the applications dated 28.3.2011 and 16.1.2012 are disposed of.