Principal District and Sessions Judge, Syed Javid Ahmad vs Muneer-ud-din Shawl

Nisar Ahmad Kakru, J.—This reference owes its origin to the complainant made by the Principal District and Session Judge Anantnag Mr.

Syed Javid Ahmad (complainant for short) seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against an advocate namely Mr. M.D. Shawl (contemnor

hereinafter). This reference is based on the facts that a violation of the traffic regulations had resulted in a challan against the contemnor which

culminated in fine imposed upon him by the learned District Mobile Magistrate, annoyance whereof against the learned Magistrate was given vent

by the contemnor Advocate through a complaint filed before the complainant. The complaint was enquired into and the finding went against the

contemnor which is the basic reason for the grouse registered in writing. No doubt, a fair criticism has to be accepted as an aid to the court, helpful

for correction of errors but it cannot be allowed to be used as a weapon to overawe a Judicial Officer. It is seen that the contemnor has not spared

the learned Mobile Magistrate even, because he has passed an order on the judicial side imposing a fine upon the Contemnor. Utterance in the

complaint make the defiance manifest which essentially emanates from dismissal of the complaint by the complainant-Principal District Judge filed

against the learned Magistrate giving cause to an inference that fairness on the part of the Principal District Judge is the cause of the complaint

which has become subject matter of this contempt. It goes without saying that floating of such complaints if permitted, the fall out will be inability of

the Judicial Officer to operate freely and fearlessly making impartial adjudication impossible. To get rid of the menace, sense of responsibility has to

be inculculated and it has to be ensured that the verdict of the Court is respected.

In the factual matrix aforementioned lam of the opinion that the comment made against the learned Principal District Judge is not based on the

true facts, therefore, not an honest comment. Yet in view of the unconditional apology filed on affidavit followed by repentance expressed in the

Open Court by the Advocate Contemnor himself, I hope and trust that there will be no repetition. Situated thus the proceedings are dropped.