PREM SURANAversusADDL. MUNSIF AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND ANR.

A                                PREM SURANA
                                          v.
        ADDL. MUNSIF AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND ANR.

                                AUGUST 13, 2002

B                 [U.C. BANERJEE AND B.N. AGRA WAL, JJ.]


         Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 :

          ss.2(c) and 15(1)-Criminal contempt ofsubordinate court-Cognizance
C   of by High Court-Advocate, an accused in a criminal case before Judicial
    Magistrate, abusing and slapping the Judicial Magistrate in open court-
    District Judge referred the matter to High Court-High Court recorded that
    the statement of the Presiding Officer was to be accepted unless it was proved
    to be wrong by cogent evidence, and concluded that the act was covered
D   within the definition of criminal contempt-It convicted and sentenced the
    advocate for 6 months imprisonment-Apology not found genuine or boa fide--
    Held, the reference 1 made to the High Court was valid and the cognizance
    taken did not suffer from any legal infirmity-Our justice delivery system
    would be in a swamp if this conduct of an advocate slapping a Judge in open
    court goes unnoticed and unpunished-Question ofacceptance ofany apology
E   or an undertaking of good behaviour does not and cannot arise, neither
    there can be any question of any leniency as regards the sentence-
    Observation and conclusions as also findings of High Court concurred with.

         Board ofRevenue, UP. v. Vinay Chand Mishra, AIR (1981) SC 723 and
F Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madya Padesh, AIR (1992) SC 902, relied on.
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 666
    of 1994.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.94 of the Rajasthan High Court
G   in Crl. Contempt Petition No. 5272of1993.

          P.N. Mishra, Ms. Shobha and Irshad Ahmad for the Appellant.

         Ranji Thomas, Ms. Bharati Upadhyaya and Javed Mahmud Rao, for the
    Respondents.
H                                       524
  PREM SURANA v. ADDL. MUNSIF AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 525

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                     A
      The instant criminal appeal depicts a rare unfortunate incident concerning
a lawyer and thus an Officer of the Court. In the justice delivery system of
the country members of the Bar are as much a party thereto as the Judges
and it is a closest possible harmony between the Bar and the Bench that can
yield the best results in achieving the objectives as enshrined in the               B
Constitution.

       Coming to the facts of the matter under consideration, an Advocate of
Jaipur District Court slapped a Magistrate in the open Court upon using most
above and unseemly language-the reason being his application for exemption
from appearance was disallowed by the Court and issuance of a non-bailable           C
warrant. Incidentally, be it placed on record that there was a criminal proceeding
pending in which the concerned Advocate being the appellant herein was an
accused and on a date when the matter was fixed for hearing the concerned
accused left the Court without permission from the Court by simply taking
recourse to an application for exemption from appearance and without waiting         D
for the decision in the matter. The application was, however, dismissed and
consequently a non-bailable warrant was issued. The version of the appellant
herein and as is available on record seem to be that he was attending the
funeral of a friend's father by reason where of he was not in a position to
attend the Court. We are not expressing any opinion in that regard. But the
circumstances which followed thereafter are not only unwarranted and                 E
unfortunate but would shudder the judicial_ conscience of all and sundry.
Members of the Bar has certain responsibility not only towards their clients
but to the Court as well and it is the conjoint effort of the Bar and the Bench
as noticed above that the administration of justice ought to be had. The
justice delivery system envisages the same and there cannot be two opinion           p
on it. The Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur,
recorded an order that in fact there was no proper ground for accepting the
application for exemption of attendance and therefore the application was
disallowed and orders were passed for summoning through arrest warrant and
to be produced on 20. 12.1993 for opening the proceedings under Section 446
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.                                                   G
     The report of the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate reads as
below:-

     After passing the above order, at about 1.25 midday, Advocate Shri
Prem Surana who is also an accused in this case, came in the Court and just          H
    526                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   after coming started abusing to me, and started to say "How you dared, to
    disallow our application for exemption of our presence". I told to him that
    Ashok Agarwal has not passed any order in his personal capacity, but the
    court has passed the orders even then keeping in view of your intention I
    will try to consider your case on the next date of hearing: but Shri Surana
B   refuted and continued to abuse: I absolutely kept mum and continued to
    convince Shri Surana in good manner and Shri Surana in the words of
    threatening told that I will make complaint to D.J. Saaheb, upon this I told that
    whatever legal remedy is available with you, are free to do such proceedings,
    upon. this Shri Surana remained in the Court, and in very high speed continued
    to abuse, and tried to reach on the side of Dias in the left side of mine, on
C   this Court Reader Shri Atmaram Sharma, Ram Behari Verma, LDC and Steno
    Om Prakash Pandey, Rajesh Mehra came ahead to catch Shri Surana, to whom
    Shri Surana backed and succeeded in coming ahead towards me and came to
    dias and gave a slap on my left cheek severely and told that "just come out,
    I show to you", After this immediately rescuing myself I went to my Chamber,
    and closed the Kundi of my Chamber in the inner side.
D
           The conduct spoken of does not be speak of good behaviour, good
    gesture neither suits an advocate, a judge has duty to discharge an~ a judge
    has passed his order in a manner as he thought fit under the circumstances
    and no litigant far less an advocate has any right to take law into his own
E   hand and then attack a judge with a slap. It is a slur on the entire judiciary;
    it is a slur on the justice delivery system of the country.

          ·The records depict that the district judge vide its letter dated 8-11-1993
    referred the matter to the High Court along with the noting and the affidavits
    of the staff attached to that Court and on receiving the reference, a notice
p   was issued on 9-11-1993 by Division Bench in Criminal Contempt Case No.
    5272 of 1993 giving Mr. Prem Surana an opportunity to show .cause as to why
    he should not be punished for committing contempt of the Court. In the
    meantime, this incident was flashed in various local newspapers and the
    Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Officers Association, Jaipur filed a criminal
    contempt petition (No. 5272/93) against Mr. Prem Surana, advocate. The case
G   was also referred to the same Bench and notice was issued in the second
    matter as well. The High Court, however, upon consideration of the matter in
    its entirety came to a conclusion that the act on the part of the appellant
    herein amounts to lowering the authority of court in the public eyes as also
    interference with due course of judicial proceedings and thus amounts to
H   scandalising the court. It was not a slap on the face of a Magistrate, but a
  PREM SURANA v. ADDL. MUNSIF AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 527

slap on the judicial authority itself. The act squarely stands covered within      A
the four comers of the definition of 'criminal contempt'. The High Court while
dealing with the matter referred to Section 15 ( l) of the Act which otherwise
empowers the High Court and the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the
criminal contempt, other than the contempt referred to in Section 14, on its
own motion or on the motion made by (a) the Advocate General; (b) any
other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General, and take         B
action.

      The High Court further upon noting the decision of this Court in the
case of Board of Revenue, U.P. v. Vinay Chand Mishra, AIR (1981) SC 723
recorded its finding to the effect that there is no restriction on the power of    C
the High Court in taking such congnizance. The reference thus made to the
High Court was otherwise valid and congnizance taken does not suffer from
any legal infirmity. We do record our concurrence therewith as well.

      Be it recorded that the High Court dealt with the matter in all its
perspectives and upon consideration of the same recorded that the statement        D
of the Presiding Officer is to be accepted unless it is proved to be wrong
cogent evidence.

      This cogent evidence however is not available on record. As such no
exception can be taken in regard to the acceptance of the same. Various
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act as well as the provisions of the          E
Indian Penal Code have been taken recourse to and upon reliance on various
judgments including that from United Kingdom, came to the conclusion that
the apology tendered was not real, sincere or genuine and it was merely an
empty formality. The High Court recorded that Mr. Prem Surana has only tried
to "play with the word 'apology' in Court like a football in the playground.
It shocks the conscience of the Court."                                            F

      The High Court went on to observe that "the prime responsibility of the
Court is to keep the fountain of the justice pure. Nobody should be allowed
to tarnish the image and the majesty of the Court. Howsoever high he may
be or whosoever he may be. Of course, aberrations by lawyers in
Court are generally ignored but when it goes to lowering the image of the          Q
Court, serious action is to be taken. Having regard to the totality of the
circumstances and particularly to the outrageous conduct of Mr. Prem Surana
by abusing and slapping the Magistrate in Court, showing of any magnanimity,
would not only be injurious to the majesty of the authority but would be
proved to be fatal. If justice has an audible voice, then one can hear it crying   H
    528                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   that Mr. Prem Surana, advocate, has committed contempt of the Court".

          1:he issue arises as to whether the Judges should be hyper-sensitive in
    the matter of discharging judicial functions - True the judge should not be         ·'
    hyper-sensitive but that does not mean and imply that they ought to maintain
    angelic silence also. Immaterial it is as to the person but it is the seat of the
B   justice which needs protection: it is the image of the judicial system which
    needs protection. Nobody can be permitted to tarnish the image of the temp1e
    of justice. The majesty of the Court shall have to be maintained and there
    ought not to be any compromise of leniency in that regard.

          The High C0urt found Mr. Prem Surana guilty of committing gross
C   criminal contempt of the court and thus sentenced him to undergo simple
    imprisonment of six months together with a fine of Rs. 2,000.

          Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned senior counsel Mr.
    P.N. Mishra with his usual eloquence submitted that his Court ought to be
    magnanimous enough to set the appellant free from the sentence awarded
D   against him. Mr. Mishra has been candid enough to submit that one cannot
    probably lend any support to the acts complained, but ascribed the conduct
    of the appellant herein as a temporary loss of mind and thus resulted in such
    an act. It has been contended that the appellant is remorseful and even
    prepared to furnish an undertaking of good behaviour in Court for next five
E   years. Significantly, however, when the apology was tendered before the High
    Court, the same was not accepted on the ground that the same was not
    genuine or bona fide. In any event, assuming we are persuaded here to accept
    such an undertaking-would that by itself obliterate the offence-the answer
    cannot, however, be in the affirmative.

F          The introduction of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the statute-
    book has been for the purposes of securing a feeling of confidence of the
    people in general for due and proper administration of justice in the country.
    Undoubtedly, a very powerful weapon rests in the hands of the law courts
    through the statute, and it is also true that the law courts must exercise the
G   same with due care and caution and for larger interest. Contemptuous conduct
    and obstruction to the majesty of law is the basic reasoning for which the
    law makers thought it prudent to engraft in the statute-book this particular
    legislation.

          On the state of the facts, as noticed above, can the Court maintain
H   silence and permit the situation go unheeded? The answer again cannot be
  PREM SURANA v. ADDL. MUNSIF AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 529

in the affinnative. Our justice delivery system would be in a swamp if this          A
conduct of an advocate slapping a judge in open Court goes unnoticed and
unpunished.

     It is at this juncture, the observations of this Court in Pritam Pal v.
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1992) SC 902, seem to be rather
apposite, This Court observed :-                                                     B
        "To punish an advocate for Contempt of Court, no doubt, must be
        regarded as an extreme measure, but to preserve the proceedings of
        the Courts from being deflected or interfered with, and to keep the
        streams of justice pure, serene and underfiled, it becomes the duty of
        the Court, though painful, to punish the contemner in order to preserve      C
        its dignity. No, one can claim immunity from the operation of the law
        of contempt, if his act or conduct in relation to Court or Court
        proceedings interferes with or is calculated to obstruct the due course
        of justice."

      The slap on the face of the Judicial Officer is in fact a slap on the ·face    D
of the justice delivery system in the country and as such question of
acceptance of° any apology or an under taking does not and cannot arise,
neither there can be any question of any leniency as regards the s~ntence.

     The High Court, in our view, has dealt with the matter in its proper            E
perspective and we do feel it expedient to record our concurrence with the
observations and conclusions as also findings of the High Court.

      In that view of the matter, this appeal fails and is dismissed.

      The bail as granted by this Court on an earlier occasion stands cancelled.     p
The accused - appellant who is present in the Court be taken into custody
immediately for undergoing remaining period of sentence. The appropriate
police authorities to lodge him in Tihar Jail presently but upon proper intimation
to the appropriate authority at jaipur, the appellant be sent to Jaipur in tenns
of the earlier directions of the High Court.
                                                                                     G
RP.                                                          Appeal dismissed.