DHARTIPAKAD MADAN LAL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE notice issued to the contemner to show cause, sets out the events that took place in the Court of Election Judge (Before Hon'ble Shri S. S. Jha, J.) in Election Petition No. 47/99 on 5-5-2000, the record of the events is as under:

(2.) THE Contempt Proceedings started before regular Criminal Division Bench comprising Justice S. S. Jha and Justice R. B. Dixit on 8-5-2000. When Contemner was produced from custody and Court appointed Additional Advocate General as Prosecutor in the case, reply was not filed and, therefore, case was adjourned for next day. On 9-5-2000 also no reply was filed. On the question of charges, contemner denied that he had misbehaved in the Court or his behaviour was unruly and that he has thumped the rostrum. On the same day, the contemner had moved an application for release on bail. Shri K. K. Lahoti, Additional Advocate General appeared and opposed the bail application in writing and submitted that the contemner being an Advocate has committed grave contempt of this Hon'ble Court. The demeanour of the contemner is not befitting for an Advocate. It is not expected from an advocate to behave in an unruly manner. The contemner has not shown any repentance or apologies which shows his adamant attitude towards his acts. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the contemner is in the habit of making such acts, which has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dhartipakad Madan Lal Agrawal v. Shri Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1987 SC 1577 ). In para 32 of the judgment, the Apex Court has considered the conduct of the contemner. On the same day later on, contemner had also filed reply which was found vague. However, considering the contentions of the parties, the contemner was directed to be released on bail. .

(3.) ON 11th May, 2000, the learned Govt. Advocate submitted that since contemner has not filed any affidavit as required by Rule 12 (a) of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1980 pertaining to gross misbehaviour before the Court, he should be punished. The contemner was asked whether he wishes to adduce the evidence, he refused and said that he would like to argue the case. He insisted that he should be allowed to drink water in the Court by bringing the bottle from outside the Court. Instead of arguing the case, the contemner submitted that he is required to appear in number of cases in various Courts all over India. However, this being a case of an Advocate, it was thought fit to hear Shri N. K. Mody, President of Bar Association, Shri Mody informed that due to misbehaviour with Advocates, the contemner was expelled long back from the membership of the Bar Association. The contemner then objected the hearing of the case by one of the Members (Hon'ble Shri S. S. Jha, J.) and submitted that since contempt is committed in the Court, therefore, the case be heard by some other Bench. The contemner during the course of argument had also misbehaved in most unruly manner and his demeanour was found contemptuous. He was not only disrespectful towards the Court but was insulting too. Since the contemner wanted hearing by another Bench, file was directed to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, for trying the charge by a Bench of which one of the Members (Hon'ble Shri S. S. Jha, J.) is not a member, as provided under Section 14 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act.