Contempt Appeal No 19 of 1981
From the judgment and order dated the 17th November 1980 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Simla in Contempt Petition Crl No 7 of 1980
V M Tarkunde section section Ray KKVenugopal Dr L M Singhvi Kapil Sibbal C M Nayar and L K Pandey for the Appellant
L N Sinha Attorney General for the Respondent Registrar High Court K Parasaran Soli
General and Miss A Subhashini for the Respondent State of H P 538 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUDC J
This is an appeal under sec
191b of the  the  against the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated November 17 1980 in Contempt Case Criminal No 7 of 1980 whereby the appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs 200
The appellant practises as an Advocate at Solan which is a district place in the State of Himachal Pradesh
It appears that only one court generally sits at Solan which is that of the Senior Sub Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate
The learned Judge who presides over that Court also exercises the powers of a Rent Controller and of the Court of Small Causes
On June 18 1980 Shri Kuldip Chand Sud who was the Presiding Officer of the Court was hearing a petition under the Rent in which the petitioner was represented by the appellant
When the case was called out for hearing the learned Judge noticed that the petitioner had not paid the process fee as a result of which the summons could not be issued to the respondent
The Judge therefore proceeded to dismiss the petition under Order 9 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code
Taking umbrage at the dismissal of the petition the appellant hurled his shoe at the Judge which hit him on the shoulder
The Judge asked his Orderly to take the appellant in custody but the appellant slipped away
The Judge evidently wanted to proceed under section 228 of the Penal Code for which purpose he issued a warrant of arrest against the appellant
The appellant successfully evaded the warrant and managed to prevent proceedings being taken by the Judge for the contempt of his court
The Judge then made a reference to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh under section 152 of the 
The High Court issued notice to the appellant enclosing therewith a copy of the reference made by the Judge
The appellant did not dispute in the High Court that he hurled a shoe at the Judge
He explained his conduct by saying that he acted under an irresistible impulse generated by the provocative language used by the Judge
The appellant s version is like this On the previous date of hearing the Judge had directed the appellant to pay fresh process fee and to supply the address of the respondent to the Rent petition
The appellant informed the Judge that he was unable to comply 539 with that order since the respondent had been admitted to a hospital and had since left the hospital
The house in which the respondent lived was locked
The Judge then declared that he proposed to take action under Order 9 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code
The appellant asked the Judge to record his statement as to why he was unable to pay the process fee and supply the address of the respondent
Instead of recording the appellant s statement the Judge remarked You rascal I will set you right
The appellant protested at the abusive language used by the Judge but the Judge retorted I repeat what I said
The appellant thereafter lost control over himself and under the extreme heat of moment and passion his hand fell on his shoe which he threw towards the dais
Many persons were present in the court who witnessed the incident
After hurling the shoe at the dais the appellant took off his coat and tie and told the court An unfortunate incident has happened
Do you want to take any action against me  I surrender
Upon this the Judge remarked You scoundrel get out of my court
The appellant thereafter left the court room
The High Court had called for the comments of the Judge on the version of the appellant from which it was satisfied that the appellant was making a false allegation that the Judge had used abusive language against him
The High Court also held that the appellant had given an untrue version of the very genesis of the incident since the Judge had not given any direction for furnishing the complete address of the respondent before him
Many technical contentions were raised in the High Court one of them being that section 10 of the was a bar to the High Court taking cognizance of the matter
It is unnecessary to go into that question or into various other matters raised in the High Court on behalf of the appellant since Shri V M Tarkunde and Shri section section Ray who appear on behalf of the appellant stated before us that the appellant did not desire to take a contentious attitude
It was stated on behalf of the appellant that he was prepared to tender an unconditional written apology to this Court and to produce evidence before us of his having tendered a similar apology to the trial court
Such apologies have been duly tendered
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant appealed to us in all their persuation that in view of the fact that the appellant 540 was genuinely repentant for his conduct he should be enlarged on a mere admonition
Counsel plead that the appellant evidently lost his balance and whether or not there was any justification for it he acted under the impulse of grave passion for which he has been sufficiently punished by the publicity which the incident has received and the notoriety which he has invited for himself
We had made it clear to the learned counsel at the very time when they conveyed to us the willingness of the appellant to apologise that we offer no promise or inducement that if the appellant apologises we will take a lenient view of the matter
In our opinion the appellant is guilty of conduct which is highly unbecoming of a practising lawyer
He hurled his shoe at the Judge in order evidently to overawe him and to bully him into accepting his submission that the case should not be dismissed under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC The appellant did his best or worst to see that the petition was not dismissed for non payment of process fee and finding that the Judge was not willing to accept his argument he took out his shoe in show of his physical prowess
We cannot adequately condemn the appellant s behaviour which strikes us as most reprehensible remembering that as a practising lawyer he is an officer of the court
Such incidents can easily multiply considering the devaluation of respect for all authority whether in law education or politics
We do not however propose to impose a long sentence of imprisonment on the appellant since he has tendered an unconditional apology to this Court and to learned trial Judge
The appellant was present in our Court at the time when his appeal was argued and though on such occasions histrionics cannot entirely be ruled out we did form an impression backed by our small little experience of life and its affairs that the appellant is deeply regretful and genuinely contrite
He has suffered enough in mind and reputation and no greater purpose is going to be served by subjecting him to a long bodily suffering
Accordingly we reduce the sentence of six months to a period of one month enhance the fine from Rs 200 to Rs 1000 and direct that the fine if recovered shall be paid over to a Legal Aid Society if any functioning in the State of Himachal Pradesh
The High Court will decide which society should get the money if there is more than one such society of which there is precious little likelihood
Order accordingly
We will be failing in our duty if before parting with the case we did not draw attention to what the appellant s counsel Shri 541 Bhagirath Das said in the High Court during the course of his arguments
Shri Bhagirath Das told the learned Judges of the High Court Better part of discretion is to ignore it instead of fanning it
It is a tussle between legal profession and judiciary
emphasis supplied since it must have been placed
This part of the argument of the appellant s counsel in the High Court is as much to be regretted as the conduct of the appellant before the learned trial Judge
Discretion is undoubtedly the better part of valour but we did not know until we read the argument advanced by the appellant s counsel in the High Court that the better part of discretion is to ignore that a practising advocate had hurled a shoe at a Judge
We are also unable to understand how the High Court was fanning the incident by taking cognizance of it which it was its clear duty to do
It makes sorry reading that a tussle between legal profession and judiciary should find its culmination in a member of that noble profession throwing a shoe at a Judge
Those who are informed of the question and think deeply upon it entertain no doubt that the Bar and the Bench are an integral part of the same mechanism which administers justice to the people
Many members of the Bench are drawn from the Bar and their past association is a source of inspiration and pride to them
It ought to be a matter of equal pride to the Bar
It is unquestionably true that courtesy breeds courtesy and just as charity has to begin at home courtesy must begin with the Judge
A discourteous Judge is like an ill tuned instrument in the setting of a courtroom
But members of the Bar will do well to remember that such flagrant violations of professional ethics and cultured conduct will only result in the ultimate destruction of a system without which no democracy can survive
All this of course is said without meaning any disrespect to Shri Bhagirath Das
Not he but what he said is the cause of this comment
NVK Appeal partly allowed


Summary:
The appellant a practising Advocate appeared for the petitioner in a petition under the Rent Act
When the case was called out for hearing the Judge noticed that the petitioner had not paid the process fee as a result of which the summons could not be issued to the respondent
The Judge proceeded to dismiss the petition under Order IX Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code
Taking umbrage at the dismissal of the petition the appellant hurled his shoe at the Judge which hit him on the shoulder
The Judge intending to proceed under Section 228 of the Penal Code issued a warrant of arrest against the appellant
The appellant evaded the warrant and successfully managed to prevent proceedings being taken by the Judge for the contempt of his Court
The Judge thereupon made a reference to the High Court under Section 152 of the 
Before the High Court the appellant did not dispute that he hurled a shoe at the Judge
He explained his conduct by saying that he acted under an irresistible impulse generated by the provocative language used by the Judge
The High Court being satisfied that the appellant was making a false allegation that the Judge had used abusive language against him and that he had given an untrue version of the very genesis of the incident held the appellant guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs 200 
In the appeal to this Court it was pleaded that the appellant evidently lost his balance and whether or not there was any justification for it he acted under the impulse of grave passion for which he had been sufficiently punished by the publicity which the incident had received and the notoriety which he had invited for himself and as the appellant was genuinely repentant for his conduct he should be enlarged on a mere admonition
Allowing the appeal in part  HELD 1
i The sentence of simple imprisonment for six months is reduced to a period of one month and the fine for Rs 200 is enhanced to Rs 1000 
537 The fine if recovered shall be paid over to the Legal Aid Society functioning in the State
540 G ii The appellant is guilty of conduct which is highly unbecoming of a practising lawyer
He hurled his shoe at the Judge in order to overawe him and to bully him into accepting his submission that the case should not be dismissed under Order IX Rule 2 CPC
The appellant did his best or worst to see that the petition was not dismissed for non payment of process fee and finding that the Judge was not willing to accept his argument he took out his shoe in show of his physical prowess
540 C iii The appellant s behaviour is condemned
It is most reprehensible remembering that as a practising lawyer he is an officer of the Court
540 D iv A long sentence of imprisonment is not imposed on the appellant since he has tendered an unconditional apology to this Court and to the trial Judge
The appellant is deeply regretful and genuinely contrite
He has suffered enough in mind and reputation and no greater purpose is going to be served by subjecting him to a long bodily suffering
540 E F 2
i The argument of the appellant s counsel in the High Court that better part of discretion is to ignore it instead of fanning it
It is a tussle between legal profession and judiciary is as much to be regretted as the conduct of the appellant before the trial Judge
541A B ii The Bar and the Bench are an integral part of the mechanism which administers justice to the people
A discourteous Judge is like an ill tuned instrument in the setting of a Court room
But Members of the Bar will do well to remember that flagrant violations of professional ethics and cultured conduct will only result in the ultimate destruction of a system without which no democracy can survive
541 E F