1 Cri. CP No.2 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Petition No.2 of 2010 Shri. A.D. Gondane, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga. ... Petitioner. Versus Shri. C.J. Sabnis, Advocate, Bar Association Nilanga, District Latur And Another. ... Respondents. -------- Smt. Sadhana Jadhav, Amicus Curiae for petitioner. Shri. A.S. Bayas, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Shri. D.V. Tele, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.2 - State of Maharashtra. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE: 28th APRIL 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1) The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga, issued a notice of contempt to respondent No.1- contemner - C.J. Sabnis, a practising Advocate at Nilanga, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur on 20-10-2010. In the notice 2 Cri. CP No.2 of 2010 it was contended that the contemner was appearing on behalf of plaintiff in a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 227 of 2008 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga. Witness No.7 for the plaintiff Uttambai Patwari was being examined on 9-2-2010. During cross- examination of the witness she had given certain admission in favour of the defendant. According to the learned Presiding Officer as soon as she gave admission, the contemner reprimanded the witness and driven her out of the witness box by force and due to that the witness could not be cross-examined by the counsel for the defendant. 2) On 20-10-2010 the contemner endorsed on the notice that as his name was not correctly stated the notice was not accepted. He did not file any reply. 3) The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga - Presiding Officer, submitted a reference for initiating contempt proceedings on 9-11-2010 addressed to the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, Aurangabad, through the 3 Cri. CP No.2 of 2010 Principal District and Sessions Judge Latur. The learned Principal District Judge forwarded the reference papers to the Registrar by a communication dated 19th/20th November 2010. 4) By an order dated 2nd December 2010, a Division Bench of this Court (Coram P.V. Hardas & A.V. Potdar, JJ.) issued notice to respondent No.1 under the Contempt of Courts Act. By an order dated 19th January 2011 the Division Bench observed that upon perusal of the reference application and the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the contemner an offence punishable under the Contempt of Court Act was prima facie made out. The Court issued rule in the petition and placed the petition for hearing in the week commencing from 18th April 2011. The contemner was directed to remain present for hearing. 5) The contemner had filed exhaustive affidavit in- reply on 7th January 2011 running into 42 pages along with several documents annexed to the same. 4 Cri. CP No.2 of 2010 6) The matter was heard by this Court on 18th April 2011 and on the request of the counsel Shri. Bayas appearing for the contemner hearing of the petition was adjourned to 27th April 2011. The contemner had filed additional affidavit which was verified on 20th April 2011. 7) Initially when the contemner had filed first affidavit-in-reply he tendered unconditional apology to the High Court. In the first affidavit-in-reply the contemner had given reference to various other proceedings pending before the learned Judge. The contemner had filed affidavit of witness - Uttambai w/o Panditrao Patwari whose evidence was being recorded on 9-2-2010 along with affidavits of other Advocates practising in the said Court. In the additional affidavit-in-reply verified on 20th April 2011 the contemner stated that the statement made in para 25 of the earlier affidavit was incorrect and he tendered unconditional undertaking to withdraw the same. He further assured to this Court that such type of incidence would not be repeated in future. The contemner has sought leave to withdraw and delete the contents of paragraph 25 of the affidavit-in-reply. 5 Cri. CP No.2 of 2010 8) The contemner had filed third affidavit in reply today wherein the contemner has stated on oath that all the contentions and material brought on record in the first affidavit by him is unintentional and therefore the same may be ignored. The contemner had no personal grievance against the Presiding Officer and therefore, his unconditional apology be accepted. The contemner stated that other contents of the first affidavit be ignored and they may not be brought on record and be deleted from his first affidavit. The contemner has specifically stated that he is not pressing the contentions raised in his first affidavit. 9) From the material placed before us and the submissions advanced we find that the contemner is a practising Advocate since last 17 years mainly practising in the Court at Nilanga. It is submitted that the instant incident of forcibly driving the plaintiff's witness out of witness box during the course of cross-examination had happened due to misunderstanding and there was no intention on the part of the contemner to interfere in administration of justice or to commit contempt of the 6 Cri. CP No.2 of 2010 Court. 10) From the record placed before us we find that the contemner, who has put in 17 years of practice behind him, is apologetic for the events and the incident which took place during the course of hearing of Regular Civil Suit No.227 of 2008. 11) The learned Amicus Curiae, Smt. Sadhana Jadhav, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that, as the contemner has tendered unconditional apology in the first affidavit and continued to express the same feeling in the successive affidavits-in-reply the unconditional apology tendered in Court by the contemner should be accepted. 12) The Apex Court in the case of Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banki, (2007) 14 SCC 1 observed : ".... an independent judiciary to dispense justice without fear and favour is paramount. Its strength is the faith and confidence of the people in that institution. That cannot be permitted to be undermined because that will be against the public interest. ....." 7 Cri. CP No.2 of 2010 We may make a useful reference to para 30 of the judgment (cited supra), which reads thus: "30. Majesty of law continues to hold its head high notwithstanding such scurrilous attacks made by persons who feel that the law courts will absorb anything and everything, including attacks on their honesty, integrity and impartiality. But it has to be borne in mind that such divinity and magnanimity is not its weakness but its strength. It generally ignores irresponsible statements which are anything but legitimate criticism. It is to be noted that what is permissible is legitimate criticism and not illegitimate insinuation. No court can brook with equanimity something which may have tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. Some people find judiciary a soft target because it has neither the power of the purse nor the sword, which other wings of democracy possess. It needs no reiteration that on judiciary millions pin their hopes, for protecting their life, liberty, property and the like. Judges do not have an easy job. they repeatedly do what rest of us (the people) seek to avoid, make decisions, said David Pannick in his book Judges. Judges are mere mortals, but they are asked to perform a function which is truly divine." 13) Considering the submissions that the contemner is a practising advocate since last 17 years and he is apologetic about the incident which took place in the Court, the attending facts and circumstance and the statement made by the contemner on oath, we accept the 8 Cri. CP No.2 of 2010 unconditional apology tendered by the contemner to this Court. We find it reasonable and proper not to proceed against the contemner under the contempt proceedings any further. 14) Notice of contempt issued to the contemner is discharged. Rule is accordingly discharged. Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl