:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.17 OF 2006 CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.17 OF 2006 CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.17 OF 2006 High Court on its own Motion ..Petitioner versus Shri S. G. Kudle, Advocate ..Respondent Mrs. U. V. Kejariwal for the State. Mr. S. G. Kudle Respondent present in person. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and S. A. BOBDE, JJ. S. A. BOBDE, JJ. S. A. BOBDE, JJ. DATE : 5TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 5TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 5TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Division Bench of this court passed an order in Letters Patent Appeal No. 156 of 2006 which had been filed by the appellant, through Advocate Mr. S. G. Kudle, who is the respondent in this contempt proceedings. Division Bench passed the following order: "We heard Mr. Kudle, learned counsel for the appellant for sometime in support of the appeal. The moment, we indicated to Mr. Kudle that, we are against him, he attributed motives to this court. He suggested that this court is prejudiced. This is not the first time that the court is experiencing this kind of conduct from Mr. Kudle. Vague and baseless allegations are levelled against the court the moment the :2: court indicates that it is not inclined in his favour. We direct that no matters of Mr. Kudle should be placed before this court in future. We direct that a copy of this order be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for information." 2. When this order was placed before the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice noted that atleast seven Hon’ble Judges have ordered that matters of Mr. Kudle, Advocate, be not listed before them. The Chief Justice also noticed that it appears to be the practice of Mr. Kudle, Advocate, to deliberately annoy the Courts and insult the Courts to avoid any adverse orders being passed. The Chief Justice was of prima facie opinion that such conduct, repeatedly undertaken, would amount to interference in the administration of justice and also lower the esteem of the Courts in the eyes of public. Chief Justice directed that the matter to be placed before a Bench on 20th July, 2006. Thereafter, contempt proceedings were initiated against the respondent and mainly the charge levelled was that on 20th July, 2006 he attributed motives to the court when an order was about to be passed against him. He also suggested in the court that the court was prejudiced against him. Thereafter Mr. Kudle filed counter affidavits and these counter affidavits also :3: do not make a pleasant reading. First affidavit is filed on 16th August, 2007. In this affidavit, he made some observations, which may have to be reproduced in order to appreciate the conduct of Mr. Kudle. He said in his affidavit: "But however, the people have not lost their faith in me and hence, I am successful Advocate, but however, some forces, which are bent upon to liquidate me from this profession are playing their own game and on the earlier occasion, His Lordship Mr. Justice V. G. Palshikar, now retired, has made the bold statement in the open Court about his association with the R.S.S. and this fact was brought to the notice of the then Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Bajpayee by way of making a Representation and since then I was harassed and when there was a Division Bench of Mr. Justice V.G. Palshikar and Mrs. Justice Ranjana P. Desai, I was under surveillance of the Police Constables in Court Room No. 6 and it was specifically noticed by me, and my assistants and I immediately asked them as to whose instance you are keeping such a close watch on me and thereafter they discontinued and in the circumstances, I say and submit that I am victimised merely on the count that I am honest and straightforward person and always justifying the cause of the law-abiding citizens, and in the circumstances, the Contempt proceedings are initiated against me with a view to dissuade me from the path of honesty which I have been trading right from the date of my enrollment as far as this noble profession is concerned." This paragraph would emphatically show that not only the respondent is under a mistaken notion that he is only honest and law abiding person on earth but he :4: has also the notion that the Judges of this court are dishonest and did not like him because he is honest. He has used the names of Judges of this Court in order to bring the court in disrepute and has not shown any remorse of his conduct in the court, on the basis of which the proceedings of contempt were initiated against him. He further stated in the same affidavit : "I cannot be punished and if the weapon of the Contempt of Court is used in curbing the voice of honest people, then in that case the Advocates who are straight-forward will do injustice to the litigants by way of not preventing the miscarriage of justice and in the circumstances, the initiation of the Contempt proceedings against me is abuse of the process of law and if the proceedings are initiated merely on account of having stood the test of time by way of honest approach, then in that case the wrong signals will be sent to the public at large and hence, I say and submit that in order to maintain the majesty of law and to avoid the miscarriage of justice, the Contempt proceedings be kindly dropped." This paragraph from his affidavit does not need any explanation by this court about the intentions of the respondent. At no point he has even disputed that he had told the court when an order was likely to be passed against him that the court was prejudiced. He had not even denied that he had attributed motives to the court in the court itself. :5: When this matter came up before this Bench sometime back we felt that the power of contempt has been traditionally used by the court very very sparingly and as a last resort. Therefore, we asked Mr. Kudle to reconsider his decision of confronting the court and making a concerted effort of committing one contempt after another contempt. He agreed to file a fresh affidavit. We gave him time to file fresh affidavit with the hope that he will look into the matter in a cool atmosphere and take a decision which would enhance his prestige as well as prestige of the court and we hoped that he would apologise for his conduct and this court would consider not using power of contempt in punishing him. Keeping in view high tradition of the judiciary in this country where the power of contempt is used very very sparingly as a last resort. But it appears that Mr. Kudle has decided not to repent and go on making statements which are contemptuous which have tendency to lower the image of the court in estimation of the people. So in a fresh affidavit also he reiterated whatever had been stated by him in his first affidavit. He also reiterated his self cultivated conviction that he was only honest person on earth and all others around him were dishonest. He apologised in the following words: :6: "I tender my apology thousand times to this Hon’ble Court and accordingly, in order to maintain the cordial relations between the Bench and Bar, the weapon of the Contempt of Court may kindly be used cautiously and with a view to secure the ends of justice. In view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, I say and submit that I have not committed any Contempt of the Court and accordingly, the proceedings be kindly dropped thereby discharging the proceedings." 3. We find that this was a qualified apology and it was not an act of apology. Law is settled that if somebody accused of contempt wants to place himself before the mercy of the court he should do so at the first instance and if it is sought at a later stage he must show repentance and it must be clear to the court that the contemnor was repenting and he had made an apology by genuine change of heart. While going through the fresh personal affidavit of Mr. Kudle filed on 20th February, 2008, we find that he has again repeated what he had said in the first affidavit; while hearing him also we had not a happy experience of seeing or observing that there has been genuine change of heart in Mr. Kudle. We are pained to convict an advocate of this court for committing contempt of the court and this is also not a pleasant experience for us, but in :7: order to maintain the dignity of this court, sometimes we have to take some unpleasant decisions, as well. The Office we are holding demands from us even taking decisions which are not even liked by us. This is one of such decisions and accordingly we convict Mr. Kudle for committing contempt of this court and sentence him to three months simple imprisonment and fine him with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand). He shall deposit the fine amount within one week from today. Since he has a right to appeal, therefore, we suspend the sentence of imprisonment for a period of one month from today to enable him to approach the Supreme Court for filing an appeal. 4. Registry to supply copy of this order to Mr. Kudle, free of costs. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)