STATE Vs. OMKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. L. Sharma, J. These proceedings have been initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, in the following facts and circumstances.

(2.) THE bail application No. 740 of 1995 and bail application No. 3969 of 1995 had been heard and orders rejecting the same, were dictated in the open Court but Mr. D. N. Wali counsel appearing for the applicants subsequently made a request that ho desired to be heard further and the order be not signed. He was granted time for further arguments and the typed order was not signed. THE bail applications were fixed for 2-5-1995 for further arguments. Mr. Omkar Singh opposite party No. 1 described himself as pairokar of the applicants Veerpal and others in Bail application No. 740 of 1995. Mr. D. N. Wali, Advocate and Counsel filed on 2- 5-1995 an affidavit sworn by Omkar Singh instead of advancing further arguments in the bail applications aforesaid. Mr. D. N. Wali asked the Court to read the supplementary affidavit of Omkar Singh. THE Court then perused the affidavit and found that the deponent Omkar Singh had made false, derogatory, disparaging and contemptuous remarks against the presiding Judge of the Bench sitting in Court No. 43 of the High Court at Allahabad, with the intention to lower down the prestige of the Court and hamper the administration of Justice. THE Court then enquired of Mr. D. N Wali that the allegations against the Judge have been made in the affidavit and he filed such an affidavit. Mr. D. N. Wali made his face oblique and affirmatively said 'yes'. THEreupon the Court was satisfied that opposite parties aforesaid have committed gross contempt of this Court and have rendered themselves liable to punishment under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. THEn, the notices were issued to the opposite parties to show cause by personal appearance as to why they should not be punished for committing the contempt of this Court.

(3.) BUT, on the date of hearing, the opposite party No. 1 Omkar Singh ultimately did not press his objections and got his application rejected as not pressed. He also submitted his unqualified apology for his admitted guilt in making adverse remarks and objectionable allegations against the Judge and prayed for being excused. Accordingly, t he objections initially raised by him, were dismissed.