STATE Vs. VISHWANATH SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. Malviya and B. P. Singh, JJ. This contempt case arises out of a refe rence made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri for taking action against Vishwanath Singh Yadav, a practising Advocate at Mainpuri, After the matter was placed before the Court, a Bench of this Court framed the follow ing charge against the opposit party : "you, Vishwanath Singh Yadav, Advocate practising at Mainpuri, on 20-10-87 after the rejection of the second bail application of accused Satya Ram and Babu Ram in case Crime No. 103/87 under Sections 302/201/404, IPC, P. S. Kishuna, District Main puri. You, with the help of your associate lawyers encircled the Court-room and did not allow the Presiding Officer, Sri Putti Lal, Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, to go out of the Court-room from 4. 00 to 4. 45 p. m. and when on 31-10-87 the Presiding Officer, Sri Putti Lal, rejected the third bail application of the aforesaid applicants, you abused the Presiding Officer casting aspersions on the chastity of his sister and mother and entered upon the dias having a paperweight in your hand for causing hurt to the Presiding Officer, Sri Putti Lal. You also threatened the Presiding Officer to cause his death and went away. You also threatened the Presiding Officer and used an unbecoming language in the open Court. Your aforesaid act lowered down the authority of the Court and scandalised the Presiding Officer and obstructed the administration of justice. As such, you committed au offence under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is punishable under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971".

(2.) IN reply to the said charge, a counter-affidavit was filed by the op posite-party alongwith an application. It was prayed in the application that the instant contempt proceedings against the opposite- party being not main tainable under Proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the proceedings against him may be dropped. Some other counter-affidavits and applications were also filed.

(3.) A perusal of the charge definitely indicates that the contempt alleged could have clearly amounted to an offence. under Section 228, I. P. C. There fore, the objection of the learned counsellor the opposite- party has force. He also relies upon the judgment in Contempt Case No. 128 of 1973 - State v. K. C. Mishra, decided on 15-4-1982 where in this Court after going through the allegations had come to the conclusion that the allegations amounting an offence under Section 228, I. P. C. render this Court incompetent to proceed against the contemner in view of the provision of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.