PRAG DAS Vs. P C AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by an Advocate of Buland-shahr charging Sri P, C. Agarwal, Mun-sif, Bulandshahr, for having committed contempt of his own Court. The application supported by an affidavit is to some extent prolix. Paragraphs 15 to 18 of the application appear to contain the main allegation. They are reproduced below:

(2.) IT is clear from the allegations and the counter-allegations that calling of a guard in the Court room led to the controversy. The lawyer applicant got the impression that the guard was called to turn him out of the Court room so that the Court would be free to pass any order in the case it liked. On the other hand, the learned Munsif called the guard as he was apprehensive of the lawyer himself. Whatever be the truth, the fact remains that the guard was called but mere calling of the guard by the Court per se would not amount, in our judgment, to committing of contempt. Certainly, if a Court in a proceeding before it calls the police guard to turn out a lawyer from the Court room, without any justification it would be contemptuous. Likewise, if a counsel exceeds his bounds and intimidates a Court in order to obtain orders favourable to his client, and brings external agencies in the Court to create an atmosphere of oppression, in those circumstances he would be guilty of contempt. Thus to establish contempt it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as to for what purpose was the guard called. Even if we assume for a moment that the learned Munsif called the guard with a view to protect himself and the guard could have manhandled the lawyer concerned that alone would not amount to contempt unless untowards events happened but nothing happened as the applicant lawyer says in his affidavit that in order to avoid an embarrassing position he quietly slipped out of the Court-room. The learned Munsif called the guard for the reasons given in his affidavit. The lawyer applicant's version is based on his impression as he thought that it was to see him out of the Court that the guard was called for by the learned Munsif. It was urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the background of the incidents which had earlier happened between the lawyer, applicant and the learned Munsif concerned in other cases, the only motive behind the purpose for calling the guard was to gag the lawyer applicant and to insult him. Having read the affidavit and the counter-affidavit, we do not agree that a situation of hostility between the lawyer applicant and the learned Munsif concerned had reached such a stage that each was at daggers drawn against the other and ready to Insult and abuse at the mere sight of each other. This is what has been attempted by the applicant in his application to establish. That is why we have observed above that much prolix matter has been introduced in this case. The applicant has even gone so far as to be critical of the policy of appointing Munsifs directly from the University. Everybody is entitled to his own way of thinking but that is hardly relevant for making out a case of contempt. The lawyer applicant concerned, Sri Prag Das, appears to be senior lawyer as he was the President of the Collecto-rate Bar Association of Bulandshahr. The learned Munsif is, no doubt, a new entrant to the service. He may be wanting in maturity and may have created an impression of taking decisions without deeper considerations. It certainly did not become a lawyer of the standing of the present applicant to make remarks against the learned Munsif which were not concerned with the incident narrated in paragraphs 16 to 18.

(3.) IT was submitted on behalf of the applicant that this Court should examine witnesses in order to find the truth there being oath against oath. We do not think it is a case of that gravity and seriousness that this Court should devote its further time. Steps in contempt should only be taken, when there is real and grave danger which may result in the obstruction of justice or result in scandalizing the Court. Incidents of high temper giving rise to misunderstandings are not uncommon, between the members of the Bar and the Bench. It behoves both the Bench and the Bar who are equal partners in the administration of justice to act with restraint and circumspection and bear with incidents which arise because of short temper or misunderstandings. No man whether he be a lawyer or a Judge can be said to be ideally noble so as always to keep equanimity and patience under every kind of provocation. To us, it appears that there has been some misunderstanding between the lawyer applicant Sri Prag Das and the new entrant in service Sri P. C. Agarwal. We do not think a case is made out for taking action.