Robkar Adalat vs B.B. Singh, Munsiff Judicial Magistrate 1st Class

After about half century of independence the judiciary in this country is at the cross-roads being endangered from within and without. The crisis

of confidence in the institution is felt and realised by all the concerned. The need of restoring confidence amongst the people for the independence

of judiciary, its impartiality and the glory of law is felt and necessitated for the survival of the major democratic institution in this polity. It is not

disputed that the last bullwork of a State apparatus is its Courts of law who are entrusted with the object of dispensing justice without interference

by any individual or institution particularly the executive. The object of discipline enforced by the Courts in the country can be achieved by

adherence to the settled principles of law and the precedents followed in this behalf. The confidence in Courts of justice which the people possess

cannot, in any way, be allowed to be tarnished, diminished or wiped out by contumacious behaviour of any person. An erring Judge and erring

contemner are both danger to the pristine purity of seat of justice. Unfortunately, the only weapon of endorsement of judicial pronouncements left

in the armoury of judicial repository is the long hand of contempt of the Court which can reach any neck howsoever high or far away it may be.

The higher Courts would be more concerned when the contempt is alleged to have been committed by the subordinate judicial officers who are

excepted to be more respectful to the judicial pronouncements and administrative directions. If the erring subordinate judicial officers are not dealt

with an iron hand, the course of justice will be thwarted resulting in the debacle of the judicial system. Even in the absence of the applicability of the

Contempt of Courts Act in the State, this Court has powers to deal with the contemners under the State Constitution, the Letters Patent, the High

Court Rules and the inherent powers vested in it.

The instant case is both serious as also unfortunate as the contempt has been proved to have been committed by a subordinate judicial officer

who has thrown to winds all the norms of decency, respect for law and due regard for the institution of the judiciary particularly the Judges of this

Court. The respondent-contemner, a judicial magistrate, has himself confessed the commission of the offence of the contempt of the Court and

submitted in reply :

That I tender unconditional apology for being guilty of contempt of Hon'ble Court and submit myself to the jurisdiction of the Court for para 1 of

the parawise reply.

One of us has already found him guilty for the contempt of the Court and we are called upon now to decide the quantum of sentence to be

awarded to the erring judicial officer on reference of the case made to this Bench.

However, before deciding the question of accepting the apology of the contemner or awarding him sentence, it would be proper to refer to

some of the facts giving rise to the unfortunate developments resulting in the initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent-contemner.

It was noted by a single Bench of this Court in Bail application No. 26 of 1988 that the respondent Judicial Magistrate who was the presiding

officer of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Budhal, at the relevant time, had directed the arrest of Hans Raj son of Nand Lal and Ashok Kumar s/o

Hans Raj in a bailable case u/s 188, R.P.C. Both the aforesaid persons were respectable citizens and businessmen of Rajouri who had earlier been

acquitted of the same offence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri, vide his order dated December 27, 1988. The seized property, being some

foodgrains, were released in their favour by the said Chief Judicial Magistrate on superdnama in terms of Section 517, Cr. P.C. The respondent-

magistrate directed their arrest on February 21, 1989 when a second challan was produced before him and sent them to the judicial lock up at

Rajouri, about 80 Kms. away and refused to grant them bail despite prayer made. He also proceeded with the initiating of contempt proceedings

against the aforesaid two persons. This Court, vide its order dated 23-2-1989, granted the aforesaid two persons interim bail and directed the

presiding officer, the respondent, to submit his report within a period of ten days positively. The respondent did not submit his report till October

17, 1989, despite reminders issued to him by the Registry under Nos. 2166-68 dt. 1-5-1989, 3217, dt. 12-5-1989, 5698 dt. 26-6-1989 and

2034 dt. 11-8-1989. When the matter was again brought up to the notice of the Court, a single Judge of this Court directed that in view of the

defiance of the orders by the respondent, the matter be brought to the notice of Lord Chief Justice for taking disiciplinary action against him for

non-compliance of the Court directions dated 23-4-1989 and 28-4-1989. A parawise report was received thereafter and the Hon'ble Chief

Justice directed the listing of the case before one of us (Sethi J.). However, while perusing the report submitted by the respondent it was found that

he had used contemptuous language in para 1 of his reply attributing bias to this Court. He had also threatened of taking legal action against the

petitioners, namely, Hans Raj and his son allegedly on the ground for having misled this Court and levelling wrong, baseless and false allegations

against him. In para 1 of his report the respondent had stated:

That I do not have faith in these proceedings, in this matter, being conducted in the Jammu Wing of the Hon'ble High Court of J. and K. I therefore

submit that in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay as also good conscience these proceedings be transferred to the Srinagar-wing of this

Hon'ble Court.

After perusal of the report this Court found :

It is regrettable and a matter of concern for all those who cherish the independence of judiciary and glory of law requiring immediate action for

maintaining dignity and honour of this institution. It is more unfortunate that this Court has been compelled to take action against a subordinate

judicial officer from whom the respect for the Court and the dignity of law is not only expected, but warranted under law and service rules.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in which the report was sent for from the Magistrate and the derogatory and

contemptuous language used by him. It is directed that let a Robkar be framed against the said Magistrate and notice issued to him to show cause

as to why the contempt proceedings be not initiated against him and he be punished and sentenced for the same. Notice be made returnable within

two weeks. The Deputy Registrar is directed to take immediate steps for the service of the notice upon the Magistrate through District Judge,

Kathua by a special Messanger. This petition along with Robkar shall be listed for further proceedings in the week commencing from 4th of Dec.,

1989 before any available bench. A notice shall also be issued to the Advocate General to assist the Court in the matter relating to the contempt

proceedings. The Deputy Registrar shall supply the copy of the reply submitted by the Presiding Officer to the Advocate General.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in bail application No. 28 of 1989, the Govt. Advocate and the respondent-

contemner who appeared in person.

A perusal of the narration of facts would show that the respondent is guilty of criminal contempt as he has, by his words in the form of

explanation submitted, scandalised and attempted to lower the authority of law and this Court. He has attributed prejudice against all the Judges of

this Court at that time presiding the Jammu wing without any basis, rhyme or reason and thereby undermined the glory of law and the institution of

judiciary. Our judicial system which is based upon the Anglo-Saxon system of dispensing justice is under an obligation of vindicating the authority

of law as a Court of record and erring individual attributing motives to the Judges without any basis is move fatal and dangerous, intended to cause

obstruction of justice and give an impression to the people in general that they were not expected to get fair justice from the Judges against whom

bias is attributed. Such an action calls for rapid and stern action. It is not disputed that the vindication of the dignity and authority of Judges is as old

as known history. It is no respecter of persons whether it is richest nobility or poorest peasantry.

The Supreme Court in Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha Vs. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Another, held:

Generally speaking"" any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard or to interfere with or

prejudice party litigants or their witnesses during their litigation amounts to contempt of Court....In order that Courts would be able to dispense

justice without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is essential that litigants who resort to Courts should so conduct themselves as not to bring the

authority and the administration of law into disrespect or disregard. Neither should they exceed the limits of fair criticism 6r use language casting

aspersions on the probity of the Courts or questioning the bona fides of their judgments. This applies equally to all Judges and all litigants

irrespective of the status of the Judge i.e. whether he occupies one of the highest judicial offices in the land or is the Presiding Officer of a Court of

very limited jurisdiction. It is in the interests of justice and administration of law that litigants should show the same respect to a Court, no matter

whether it is highest in the land or whether it is one of inferior jurisdiction only. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 does not define 'contempt' or

'Courts' and in the interest of justice any conduct of the kind mentioned above towards any person who can be called a 'Court' should be

amenable to the jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. It must be borne in mind that we do not propose to lay down that all

Registrars of all Co-operative Societies in the different States are ""Courts"" for the purpose of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. Our decision is

expressly limited to the Registrar and Assistant Registrar like the one before us governed by the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act.

The law regarding apology is well settled that tendering of an apology does not entitle the contemner to get the discharge as a matter of right. An

apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of his offence nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea but is intended to be

evidence of real contrition. Acceptance of apology, where reckless, unfounded and biased allegations are made wantonly against the Judges

imputing partiality or reflecting their biased mind would amount to mockery of justice. Such an attempt has to be put down and curbed with firm

hands failing which the dignity of the Courts would be imperilled, endangering the institution of justice which shall stand jeopardised. Acceptance of

the apology is always in the discretion of the Court and in cases where grave nature of unfounded allegations are levelled, no apology should be

accepted. The apology cannot be accepted as a ritual to wipe of the gravity of the attempt committed. Law punishes the archer as soon as the

arrow is shot, no matter if it fails to hit the target.

Before accepting or rejecting the plea of apology all the attending circumstances, such as the nature of the allegations made, the extent of common

man's faith shaken in the institution of judiciary, the concern of the people in a particular case and the conduct of the contemner has to be taken

note of. Though it is true that the Courts have not to be vindictive in dealing with the matters of contempt, yet, they are under a bounded legal duty

to maintain the dignity of law and restore the confidence of the common man in the institution of the judiciary. Where the apology is not full, frank

and sincere confession of a wrong done, it has to be rejected and the contemner convicted and sentenced. A belated apology should never be

accepted because it does not demonstrate the evidence of real contriteness and mainly conscious of the wrong done. Such an apology becomes

the emerging of a coward shivering at the prospect of the stern command of justice upon the trembling head of the contemner. A Full Bench of

Delhi High Court in E.T. Sen (Retd.) Vs. Edatata Narayanan and Others, , held :

...I am wholly unable to sustain this submission. The law of contempt of Court is as precise as it can be in view of its very nature. It depends on the

facts and circumstances of each case and the law reports abound with decisions which are legion, conveying and fairly clear idea to anyone, who

choose to read them with requisite care and attention as to what is the precise scope and effect of the law of contempt of Court and, broadly

speaking, it is reasonably settled as to when a publisher must pause and ponder whether or not to transgress the bonds discernible from those

decisions. In regard to apology also, it is settled by a host of decisions by the various High Courts and quite a few by the Supreme Court that an

apology and a justification ill go together. We are not unaware of some observations in the Supreme Court decision . in M.Y. Shareef and Another

Vs. The Hon'ble Judges of The High Court of Nagpur and Others, but they must be confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case,

and on the authority of that decision, it is not possible to hold that in a case like the present, an apology, operative after a finding by the Court that

the impugned publication amounts to contempt of Court deserves to be accepted. Apology, it is settled beyond dispute, has to be offered clearly at

the earliest opportunity indicative of remorse and contrition which is the essence of the purging of a contempt and it should not be offered in the

hope and with the object of avoiding punishment."" (Para 15)

Similar views on apology had been taken by different High Courts in AIR 1948 1 (Oudh)

It has to be seen on the touchstone of the judicial pronouncements of various High Courts and the Supreme Court as to whether the apology

tendered by the petitioner should be accepted in the instant Case or not. The respondent-contemner had directed the detention of respectable

citizens who had been earlier acquitted and again challaned in an offence u/s 188, R.P.C. which is admittedly bailable. The respondent failed to

submit his report as per directions of the Court dated 23-2-1989, 29-3-1989, 28-4-1989 and 12-10-1989. He also did not submit his report

despite various reminders issued to him by the Registry as referred to here-inabove. Ultimately, when he submitted his report in this Court on 8-

11-1989, he made reckless, unfounded, mischievous, scandalous allegations in para 1 of the report expressing lack of faith in all the Judges of this

Court discharging their duties at the Jammu Wing. He tried to justify his action of detention of the innocent citizens in his report by stating :

It is also stated that I had not enlarged the applicants on bail but had sent them to the judicial lock up at Rajouri on the prayer of the prosecution,

when the challan against the applicants was produced by the Budhal Police Station for offence u/s 188, R.P.C. in the Court. I am of the opinion

that even though offence u/s 188, R.P.C. is bailable, it does not cast an obligation on the Court to accept bail of an accused in each and every case

which can even be refused in fit case.

The submission of the explanation clearly indicates the vindictive mind of the respondent having not recognised the illegality committed by him nor

have contrite of the mischief done to the innocent citizens. Even in his objections wherein he pleaded guilty and tendered apology, he has not

realised for non-submission of the report as per Court directions and without admitting the gravity of the language used he submitted, ""that para

No. 1 of my report is in bad taste and I am myself quite embarrassed by the expression and offer my unconditional apology for the same; that in

the entire reply excluding para No. 1 no such expression has been used which by itself proves my bona fides for submitting to the jurisdiction of the

Hon'ble Court."" It is evident that the apology was tendered by the respondent merely as a weapon of defence to the proved case of contempt

against him and with the intention of saving his neck from the long hands of the law of contempt vesting powers in this Court to punish the guilty in

appropriate cases. Despite hearing arguments on 15-3-1990, we watched the conduct of the Presiding Officer in the discharge of his duties to find

out as to whether he has sincerely offered the apology and intended to mend his ways but the record revealed otherwise showing no repetance on

his part to justify the acceptance of apology.

Accordingly after holding the respondent guilty of the contempt of this Court by using maliciously scandalous language by attributing motives

and bias to the Judges of this Court without any basis or foundation, with the intention of scandalising the authority of law and lowering the dignity

and respect of the institution of judiciary in the eyes of common man, we do not find any circumstance in favour of the respondent-contemner or

justification for acceptance of the mala fide apology tendered only with the object of evading the consequences of punishment and sentence. The

apology tendered by the respondent is, therefore, rejected. Respondent B. B. Singh, Munsiff Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, presently posted at

Bani, is held guilty for the commission of the Contempt of this Court. However taking a lenient view in the matter and on account of his qualified

apology the contemner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of Court and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred). In default

of payment of fine, the respondent shall further undergo simple imprisonment of one month.

This also disposes of bail application No. 26 of 1989 and the interim order of the bail passed in favour of the petitioners therein is made

absolute.