STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. DHARAM RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is pointed out that an Advocate committed offending act on 24-8-1998 and one year therefrom having elapsed, the Court may consider the question of limitation before taking cognizance of the contempt under Section 20. Contempt of Courts Act read with Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-I Allahabaad High Court Rules called Rules of Court).

(2.) Before proceeding further, it is worth while to deal with the limitation aspect of the case.

(3.) Shri Shambhoo Nath, II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Judicial Magistrate. Hamirpur submitted a report dated 28-8-1998 to the District Judge, Hamipur who, in turn, made a reference to the High Court vide letter dated 31-10-1998. A detailed note was prepared by the office giving details of the acts - committed by Sri Dharam Raj Singh and Sri Jai Karan Singh. Advocates which constituted contempt of the subordinate Court. The Registrar submitted 'statement of the case' vide his note dated 27-10-1998 before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Chapter XXXV-E Rule 4(c), Rules of Court and concluded, the lone temper and rowdyism created by Sri Dharam Raj Singh, Advocate squarely falls within the definition of contempt.