STATE OF U.P. Vs. NAND RAM JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference being made to this Court, notice alongwith the charge was issued 'to the contemner-opposite party to show cause why he should not be punished for committing contempt of Court.

(2.) According to the facts which do not seem to be disputed before us, the contemner-opposite party was a practising lawyer in the judgeship of Lalitpur. On, 19.5.1982 when statement of witness Hardas was being recorded by the Reader of the Court of Munsif-Magistrate, Lalitpur, the contemner told the Reader that he had noted wrong words while recording the said statement. The Reader is alleged to have told him that he was writing only such words which were dictated by the Presiding Officer. When the Presiding Officer told him that only amount to Contempt of Court.

(3.) Initially a counter-affidavit was filed in this case. However, today the contemner has filed another affidavit. Sri V. S. Singh, learned counsel, who is appearing on behalf of the contemner says that the contemner no longer wants to contest this proceeding but is really sorry for all that had happened earlier in the Court. In the affidavit filed to day before us, the contemner has stated that in the year 1982 when the unfortunate incident had taken place, he was fresher in the legal profession and without intending any injury or without any intention to lower down the prestige of the Court or to interfere with the proceedings of the Court and the administration of justice, the unfortunate incident had occurred. The contemner-opposite party has tendered his unqualified and unconditional apology and after categorically assenting that no such incident would happen in future on his part, he has left himself on the mercy of the Court.