IN RE: JAGDISH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Contempt application has been registered under Section 10 read with Section 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1971") against contemnor Jagdish Chandra Srivastav, Advocate, on a Reference letter dated 29.1.2011 made by Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, Additional District Judge/FTC -I, Kushinagar, Padrauna complaining about conduct of contemnor shown on 28.1.2011 during hearing of Criminal Revision No. 34/07 Chandra Shekhar v. State. The relevant extract of the letter is reproduced as under:

(2.) SUPPORTING the aforesaid incident the learned Judicial Officer has also sent statements of Ravindra Prasad Chaurasia, Reader, Janardan, P.A., Santosh Chaubey, Appeal clerk. Notice was issued to the contemnor on 14.10.2014. The contemnor filed reply vide affidavit dated 6.4.2015 wherein he raised the objection that the contempt proceedings are barred by limitation. The objection with regard to limitation raised by contemnor has already been considered and decided on merits vide order dated 6.4.2015, wherein this Court has rejected the said objection and held that the proceedings are not barred by limitation by placing reliance on Apex Court's decision in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and others, : (2001) 7 SCC 549.

(3.) ON merits of the allegations contained in Reference letter, the contemnor said that a complaint was also made by Presiding Officer to Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the matter was examined by Disciplinary Committee in case No. 38 of 2011 and the Committee found complaint made by Judicial Officer, without any basis, and dropped the proceedings. A copy of said order is on record which shows that the Bar Council issued notice to complainant i.e. the Judicial Officer concerned, who did not appear or submitted his response, whereupon on the basis of statement and affidavit given by contemnor, the matter was dropped. In any case, the proceedings of the Bar Council are neither binding on this Court nor otherwise constitute an evidence in support of the contemnor but his attempt is clearly to denounce the correctness of the allegations made by the subordinate Court in the Reference in question.