AKHILESH KUMAR Vs. MAGENDRA PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contemnor is present in person and stated that whatever reply he intended to file, is already on record and now he does not want to file any reply or adduce any evidence, therefore, the Court should decide the matter after considering his submissions.

(2.) Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Special Counsel nominated by the Court to assist in this criminal contempt has been heard in support of proceedings. We may also put on record that a number of counsels have put in appearance on behalf of contemnor, whose names are also shown in the cause list, instead the contemnor appeared in person and requested that he should be permitted to defend in person which we have allowed. The contemnor has been heard in person at length.

(3.) This criminal contempt application was registered on receiving a letter dated 20.04.2012 from District Judge, Budaun, addressed to Registrar General of this Court and enclosing therewith reference letter dated 16.4.2012 of Sri Akhilesh Kumar, Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Budaun. The reference was received in this court on 27.04.2012, whereafter it was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and His Lordship approved the same on 02.07.2012 to place it before the Bench dealing with criminal contempt for initiating appropriate contempt proceedings. Pursuant thereto, a Division Bench, on 18.07.2012, having been satisfied, prima facie, that Sri Magendra Pal Singh, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as "contemnor"), practising in District Judgeship, Badaun, has attempted to scandalize Presiding Officer as also the Court and lowered down authority of the Court, took cognizance of the reference and issued notice to the contemnor. The contemnor put in appearance and submitted reply along with his affidavit dated 17.10.2012. In para 6, he said :