SUO MOTU Vs. YOGESH J. BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 0. Present suo motu Contempt Proceedings are initiated against the respondents herein for the criminal contempt committed by them by making reckless and baseless serious allegations of corruption made against all the Courts/Judicial Officers in the Bhuj Court and more particularly, Shri S.N. Padhya, learned Magistrate, made by them in their complaint dated 3.4.2012. It is required to be noted that respondent No. 2 is Practicing Advocate and respondent No. 1 is his client.

(2.) 0. That by order dated 1.5.2014, the Division Bench of this Court has framed the following charge against both the respondents and for the following charge both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are to be tried for criminal contempt within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The charge against respondents No. 1 and 2 reads as under:

(3.) 0. Today, when the present application is taken up for final hearing, learned Advocates for the respective respondents have stated at the bar that both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are personally present in the Court. Shri D.K. Puj, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Brahmbhatt, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 have stated at the bar that under the instructions from their respective respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are personally present in the Court that both the respondents -contemnor pleaded guilty and they admitted the charge frame against them. Shri Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 -advocate has candidly admitted that respondent No. 2 -advocate has committed blunder and/or mistake in making correction in his own writing in the complaint dated 3.4.2012 signed by the respondent No. 1, which was addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice. He has stated at the bar that respondent No. 2 tendered unconditional apology. He has requested the Court to accept unconditional apology tendered on behalf of respondent No. 2 looking to his age. Similarly, Shri Puj, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 has also stated at the bar that respondent No. 1 also tendered unconditional apology and has requested to accept unconditional apology and pardon him.