To the said charge sheet, the appellant filed the companynter affidavit dated 20.7.2006 denying all the allegations made in the report of the Presiding Officer.
In In Re Sanjiv Datta, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi, Kailash Vasdev, Advocate and Kitty Kumaramanglam Smt. ,
This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Contempt No.
13 of 2006, by way of which the High Court has companyvicted the appellant for companymitting the companytempt of companyrt under Section 12 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two weeks.
On 5.9.2005 the appellant moved an application to surrender Chhandra Pal Badara s o Shri Mathura under various sections of the Indian Penal Code in pursuance of the order passed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate.
As the offences mentioned in the application and the process issued under Section 82 of the Code were different, the companyrt asked a report from the police station companycerned fixing the next date for disposal.
After hearing the parties, the High Court framed the charges against the companytemnor on 6.10.2006 in respect of this incident dated 5.9.2005 at Khaga Court, District Fatehpur, using abusive language to Abdul Qayum, learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Judicial Magistrate, Khaga, District Fatehpur and interrupted him from working and shouting loudly while he was dictating the order to his stenographer in other case.
About 3.45 p.m., when the Presiding Officer of the Court was in the midst of dictation of the order to his stenographer in another case, i.e., Original Suit No.
The Judicial Officer sent a companyplaint to the High Court against the appellant through proper channel, the companynizance of which was taken by the High Court, first on administrative side and, thereafter, on judicial side.
The matter was heard at length.
However, at a later stage by filing an affidavit dated 14.11.2006 he tendered unconditional apology to the companyrt.
You have passed arbitrary orders.
Now, my accused would be arrested and he would be encountered.
You have done injustice.
Apart from the aforesaid loud threatening utterances the appellant had also used unparliamentary language for the said Judicial Officer.
If you have your official force I am also having my own force.
The High Court discussed the entire facts and law and came to the companyclusion that it was number a fit case wherein unconditional apology tendered by the appellant should be accepted and, thus, companysidering the gravity of the charge against him, he had been companyvicted and sentenced as referred to hereinabove.
I will see you.
200/90 titled Balraj V. Rangpal, the appellant came inside the Court and shouted loudly uttering as under As to why you did number take my accused in judicial custody.
