GYANENDRA SINGH ADVOCATE Vs. STATE OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Contempt proceeding has its basis in the Reference made by Sri T.A. Siddique, District Judge Jaunpur, whereby a request has been made to initiate contempt proceeding under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against contemnor Gyanendra Singh, a practising Advocate of Civil Courts Jaunpur bearing Enrollment/Registration No 2792/77 vide letter dated 6.8.2010 addressed to Registrar General of the Court.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that on 2.8.201 Oat 2.35 p.m., when the Court was already seized of proceeding in ST No 100 of 2010 and was waiting for arrival of District Government Counsel (Crl) for recording of statement of Seema in camera in the aforesaid Sessions trial, the contemnor came at the dais and began to make enquires from the Court asking as to what happened to his application. When the Court demanded to know from him, which application he was talking about, he replied that he had moved a bail application in which he wanted earlier date or a hearing today itself. When the Court asked him to make enquiries from the clerk concerned, he retorted that he would not go to the clerk and the Court would have to hear the application just now upon which he was informed that the bail applications had been heard in pre-lunch sessions and appropriate orders passed thereon. The District Judge conveyed information to him that the Court was already seized of the Sessions trial in which camera proceeding has commenced. This information of the Court infuriated the contemnor who flung accusation at the Court stating that the Presiding officer was working according to his whims and was not granting relief in bail matters to the lawyers. When the contemnor was asked not to cast aspersion upon the Court as it was a judicial matter and related to judicial discretion, the contemnor flew into rage and made the remarks which included-"they (lawyers) would not allow the Court to function and they would see how the Court carried on judicial transaction; the Courts would be pad-locked; that in case the Presiding officer was not amenable to what the lawyers wanted, the working of the Courts would be brought to naught; that perhaps, the presiding officer (Distt Judge) was not aware about what type of lawyers here are."

(3.) Sri K.N. Tripathi and Sri Anil Kumar Singh Advocates appeared for the contemnor and pleaded for merciful view in the matter. On being called upon to argue the case on merit of the case, he referred to apology stating that the contemnor has already tendered the apology and prayed for discharge taking a benign view further urging that that the contemnor was fairly senior having been enrolled as Advocate in the year 1977 attended with submission that he cannot be said to be addicted to using contemptuous language and making scurrilous attacks nor is there any previous instance of his showing disrespect to the Court. Ultimately, he stated that the contemnors should be given a chance to expiate their deviant behaviour if it be so.