District and Sessions Judge vs Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate

D.B. Lal, J.—Shri B. S. Chauhan, Additional Subordinate Judge, Mandi, made a complaint that on December 4, 1974, when he arrived in his Court room, he found Shri R. K. Sharma Advocate occupying his chair. The said Advocate was also going through the criminal record and upon asking by the Presiding Officer did not vacate the chair. By such a conduct exhibited by the Advocate, he was stated to have committed "criminal contempt" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Upon the report of Shri B. S. Chauhan, Additional Subordinate Judge, cognizance was taken by this Court u/s 15 as it was a case of contempt of a subordinate Court. Notice was issued to Shri R. K. Sharma and he has submitted a reply.

The learned Advocate-General filed an affidavit of Shri B. S. Chauhan in support of the complaint. A request was made on behalf of the contemner to cross examine him. Accordingly a date was fixed for the statement of Shri B. S. Chauhan and further for the statement of his Reader who too was conversant of the contempt. However, on October 30, 1975, when the matter was set down for hearing, Shri R. K. Sharma came with the following statement:

He had gone to the dais of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mandi, to warm himself against an Angithi kept there and he never meant any disrespect to the Presiding Officer or to his Court. In case such an impression has been created, he expresses regret for the same.

Upon the aforesaid statement the learned Advocate-General did not produce any evidence. However, the parties argued out the matter and left the decision with the Court.

As evident the Advocate admits to have gone over to dais and perhaps to have occupied the chair of the Presiding Officer. However, the reason he ascribes is different-namely, that it was winter month and he was warming himself against the Angithi kept there perhaps for the Presiding Officer. That could be the intention of the Advocate when obviously no arrangement was made to keep the entire Court room warm so that the facility could be shared by the Advocates assembled there. Nevertheless the conduct of the Advocate was simply reprehensible especially when the Presiding Officer had gone over to dais and had requested the Advocate to vacate his chair. That may even amount to causing obstruction in judicial work. As such prima facie a criminal contempt is committed by the Advocate and this Court could have taken a serious view much to the detriment of the career of the Advocate. It is however gratifying that a better sense has prevailed. The Advocate has expressed regret and u/s 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it may not be necessary to impose a sentence upon the Advocate as in our opinion it may be held that the contempt is not of such a nature that it substantially interferes or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice.

We, therefore, do not impose any sentence upon the Advocate and drop the present proceedings.