STATE OF U.P. Vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act on a reference by a Munsif, Ghaziabad, forwarded by the District Judge, Ghaziabad. The contemner is one, Sri Shailendra Sharma, Advocate, Civil Courts, Ghaziabad. We have heard the learned Addl. Government Advocate, as also Sri V.C. Misra, learned counsel for the contemner. In the reference made by the concerned court below it was alleged that original Suit No. 923 of 1991 was fixed for disposal of a prayer of temporary injunction before the learned Munsif, and Sri Shailendra Sharma happened to be the counsel for the plaintiff in the suit. The matter was called out on 16.10.1991, but the senior counsel for the plaintiff, the present contemner, was busy in some other court and the court awaited for him to come upon a request made to it on behalf of the counsel by his junior colleague. When the senior counsel did not turn up even after a considerable time, the defendants' counsel pressed hard for taking up hearing. It was agreed that the defendants' counsel would be heard and, thereafter, when Sri Shailendra Sharma would come, he might join the arguments. But Sri Shailendra Sharma could not turn up even thereafter and the court directed the matter to be put on 23.10.1991 for orders, making it clear that submission on behalf of Sri Shailendra Sharma could be made in the meantime. After the order to that effect was recorded a junior to Sri Sharma appeared in the Court and moved an adjournment application on the ground of illness of Sri Sharma. The court requested him to get an endorsement of the learned counsel for the defendants on the application as the latter had already left the court by that time. The endorsement was obtained and the application was entertained and the matter was ordered to be re -heard on 23.10.1991. It is further alleged that the court had hardly taken its seat after passing orders on the adjournment application, as aforesaid that Sri Shailendra Sharma suddenly appeared in the Court and uttered threatening and unchaste words.

(2.) UPON this reference the court issued a notice to Sri Shailendra Sharma to show cause as to why he should not be punished for having committed criminal contempt of the Court of the aforesaid learned Munsif.

(3.) WE note it with utmost pain and concern that allegations of contempt of courts are rising these days and involvement of learned advocates who are officers of the court and are supposed to uphold the dignity of the court in such matters is also alarmingly rising. We observe that the judicial system must be respected by all concerned and the judicial authorities must be kept at a high pedestal and it is one of the duties of the learned advocates to see that judiciary is not denigrated. We could have gone to find out the truth in this case, but we refrain from doing so in the larger interest of the dignity of the judiciary as two sides of the judicial system, the Bench and the Bar, are involved in the present proceeding. We take upon the words of Sri Shailendra Sharma that he sincerely believes in what he has spoken in paragraph 4 of his affidavit dated 28.2.1993 and that these averments reflect his true regard for the judiciary. Together with it, we keep in mind the unconditional apology which he has tendered in the said paragraph of his affidavit. In view of the above, we do not propose to proceed further with this contempt proceeding. The notice issued upon the contemner stands discharged.