STATE Vs. A C AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE office placed this Misc. Application dated 6-9-2001 filed by the convicted contemner supported by his affidavit in terms of order dated 31-8-2001 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2001 firstly before the Hon'ble C. J. 's Bench on 15-9-2001. Vide Order dated 15-9-2001 Hon'ble C. J. 's Bench directed placing of this application before our Bench on 24-9-2001. THEn the office placed it for our consideration for the first time at 3. 00 p. m. yesterday (may be on account of the fact that one of us (Binod Kumar Roy, J.), was on Circuit Holding Court at the Lucknow Bench from Monday dated 17th September, 2001 to 22nd September, 2001, praying to accept the apology tendered by him on the ground that it will be expedient in the interest of justice for the reasons and facts given in the accompanying affidavit.

(2.) THE affidavit (excluding the earlier part) reads as follows: " (1) THE the deponent is Respondent/applicant in the above noted contempt and as such he is fully acquainted with the facts deposed to below. (2) That the deponent is sole petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40783 of 1999 and had moved a transfer application in the case transferring the writ petition some other bench, as matter was tied up with bench presided by Hon'ble B. K. Roy, J. (3) That Hon'ble B. K. Roy, J. was pleased to release the case on 8-11-2000. However, issued a notice of contempt to the deponent on the contents of the transfer application aforesaid. (4) That the deponent was conducting his case in person and had also drafted the writ petition and had been from time to time drafting other applications/affidavits to be filed in the Hon'ble Court, although he does not have any law degree or experience of practising as a lawyer and was arguing in the present writ petition against the order of the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, punishing the petitioner by permanently stopping his increments against the alleged non-evaluation of answer scripts, a case in which the petitioner was falsely implicated and Respondents filed false affidavits in the Court. (5) That the petitioner is a teacher and has always been conscious of the dignity and Majesty of the Hon'ble Court and had never any intentions to commit contempt or disregard in any manner the dignity and decorum of the Hon'ble Court, and with this thing in his mind he had made a confidential representation dates September 9, 2000 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court, New Delhi, which was personally handed over by him in the office of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India on September 11, 2000. A copy of the said representation is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure No. '1' to this affidavit. (6) That the aforesaid contempt case came for hearing on 10-8-2001 before the bench consisting of Hon'ble B. K. Roy and Hon'ble S. K. Jain, JJ. when the Hon'ble Bench granted time to file show cause/or apology to the deponent by 1. 30 p. m. in Chambers. (7) That the deponent could not file the show cause/or apology to the Hon'ble Court in Chamber on 10- 8-2001 as he was already ill and was suffering from high fever and therefore, requested his Counsel to request the Hon'ble Court to grant time to file the aforesaid show cause/or apology, and seek adjournment due to this reason. (8) That the Counsel of the dependent sought adjournment from Hon'ble Court on the aforesaid reasons but the adjournment was not granted by the Hon'ble Court, and convicted the depondent for 15 days simple imprisonment. (9) That thereafter, the deponent filed a Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2001 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the order dated 10-8-2001 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Contempt No. 47 of 2000. And the following interim order dated 21-8-2001 was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court: "upon being mentioned by the Counsel the Court made the following. ORDEr List on the scheduled date. Pending further orders, the contempt proceedings shall remain stayed. S/d-Illegible (N. Annapurna) Court Master, S/d-Illegible (Shelly Sengupta) Court Master" 21. 8. 2001 A Photo copy of the aforesaid order dated 21-8-2001 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure No. '2' to this affidavit. (10) That on 31-8-2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass the following order: "upon hearing Counsel the Court made the following. ORDEr Counsel for the appellant states that the appellant will file an apology before the High Court and the High Court may be requested to hear the appellant on that. THE matter is adjourned by three weeks in order to enable the appellant to approach the High Court. If an apology is filed within a week, the High Court should deal with the same. List after three weeks. Interim orders to continue till further orders. Sd/- Illegible (S. L. GOYAL) COURT MASTER" A Photostat copy of the said order dated 31-8-2001 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure No. '3' to this affidavit. (11) That the deponent has had never intended nor wished to commit any contempt of Court or to show any disregard during the entire proceedings of the Court in the writ petition as well as the contempt case, aforesaid and never imagined to violate the dignity and decorum of the Hon'ble Court. If this Court feels that the deponent has committed contempt of the Hon'ble Court, the deponent tenders his unqualified apologies. I, the deponent, abovenamed do hereby solemnly affirm and swear and verify that the contents of paragraph Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, (partly), 5 (partly), 6, 7, 8, 11 of this affidavit are true to my personal knowledge; and those of contents of paragraph Nos. 4 (partly), 5 (partly), 9 and 10 of this affidavit are based on perusal of records; which all I believe to be true and that no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed in it. So help me God. (A. C. Agrawal)"

(3.) IN Jaswant Singh v. Virendra Singh, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 384, when a transfer petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against a learned Judge of the High Court it was observed that "transfer petition like the application casts aspersions on the learned Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions and has the tendency to scandalise the Court. It was an attempt to browbeat the learned Judge of the High Court and cause interference in the conduct of a fair trial. Not only are the aspersions derogatory, scandalous and uncalled for but they also tend to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect. . . . . . . . . . . bring the Court in disrepute. "