XXX Vs. UTPAL GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, and standing counsel for this Court, assisted by Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Ziaul Kamar, learned senior counsel, who is the amicus curiae in the matter, assisted by Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Utpal Goswami, the respondent-contemnor who has appeared in- person.

(2.) The respondent-contemnor, who is an Advocate by profession, was charged with criminal contempt under Sec. 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. On his appearance, the respondent had filed an affidavit in support of his defence on 17/1/2023 and in paragraph 5 and 6 thereof the respondent contemnor has pleaded guilty of the charge. Some of the statement made by the respondent- contemnor in the said affidavit are extracted below:-

(3.) The background facts of the case is that on 30/3/2021, the respondent-contemnor had filed a petition under Sec. 24 of the CPC for transferring some cases pending in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge (Educational Tribunal), Jorhat to the Court of learned District Judge, Jorhat. In the said petition, the respondent-contemnor had impleaded the then Addl. District Judge, Jorhat by name. When it came to the notice of the learned District Judge, Jorhat that a judicial officer was made a party in the said proceeding, the learned District Judge had interacted with the respondentcontemnor so as to ascertain if any genuine mistake was committed in arraying the concerned judicial officer by name. To the said query, the respondent- contemnor had admitted that he had impleaded the judicial officer concerned by name. The Sheristadar i.e. Head Assistant of the Court of learned District Judge, Jorhat had put up an administrative note along with the case filed as per Rule 49(3) of the Civil Rules and Orders of Gauhati High Court, referring to the provision of Sec. 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Accordingly, the learned District Judge, Jorhat had passed an order on the administrative side, thereby deferring registration of any miscellaneous case and had asked the respondent-contemnor to make necessary corrections in the petition.