STATE OF U P Vs. RAM CHANDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Ram Chandra Sharma son of late Sri Mohan Lal Sharma, who has been charged with having committed ex-facie contempt of High Court on 2.9.2005. We have also heard the learned Government Advocate. The earlier facts are as follows : On 2.9.2005 a Bench of five Hon'ble Judges passed the following order:

(2.) Your above conduct amounts ex facie contempt of the Court during the course of hearing. We direct that Shri Ram Chandra Sharma be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail. We further direct the Registrar General to serve the above charge today itself upon Shri Ram Chandra Sharma, the contemnor. Shri Sharma is allowed a week's time to file reply to the above charge. List the matter on 9th September, 2005 at 2.00 p.m. for appearance of Shri Ram Chandra Sharma." On 9.9.2005 the same Full Bench passed the following orders:

(3.) Pursuant to the above order dated 9.9.2005, this Bench was nominated by the order of Hon'ble Senior Judge dated 9.9.2005 to try the ex facie contempt. Sri Ram Chandra Sharma, the contemnor was brought before us today from jail, where he is presently serving out a sentence of imprisonment awarded to him for another contempt of Court, by a five Judge Bench headed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 16-09-2005. Sri Sharma has submitted that he has not filed any written reply or counter affidavit in respect of the charge framed against him by the order dated 2.9.2005, and has also submitted that he does not propose to file any written reply because of certain constraints. He has submitted that he is not filing a written reply. According to him he has been out of practice for the past ten months as a result of a restraint order against him passed by a five Judge Bench which has debarred the contemnor from entering the Civil Court premises. Further, according to Sri Sharma, he is the sole bread earner of his family and having been in jail he was handicapped in preparing, drafting and filing written reply. However, Sri Sharma has orally expressed regrets for the incident of 2.9.2005 in open Court, and has also stated that his loud voice, which was taken otherwise by Bench of 5 Hon'ble Judges on 2.9.2005, was his normal voice resulting from the fact that he practices only in lower court where facility of microphone is not available. Even if loud voice is ignored, the fact remains that 5 Hon'ble Judges in their order dated 2.9.2005 have mentioned that