1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2009 (Shri S.S. Ahmad, D.J. II & Additional Sessions Judge, Akola .vs. Shri S. D. Tayde, Advocate Bar Association, Akola and ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. C.A. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 in person. Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for Respondent no.3. .......... CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 28, 2010 Heard Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned APP for the State of Maharashtra, Mr. C.A. Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 in person. This reference under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is at the instance of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Akola. By communication dated 2.5.2009 the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Akola brought to the notice of this Court that respondents no.1 and 2 had made serious allegations against Shri S.S. Ahmad, who was at the relevant time was functioning as District Judge-II. Even criminal complaint was filed against him in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola. Notices were issued to the respondents. 2 Pursuant to the said notice, respondents no.1 and 2 appeared in person. Both the respondents expressed remorse and tendered apologies and also volunteered to publish apology in dailies “Deshonnati” and “Lokmat” published from Akola. Accordingly apology has been published by both the respondents and the same have been placed on record. Both the respondents have assured this Court that henceforth they would not indulge in any act which will scandalise or tend to scandalise or lower the authority of the Court and/or will do any act which will tend to interfere with, the due course of judicial proceeding, The statements made on behalf of both the respondents are accepted. In view of the assurance given by both the respondents that they would not indulge in similar activities in future, we do not propose to proceed further with the contempt proceedings. The contempt proceedings against both the respondents are dropped. Both the respondents are warned that if any contempt is committed by them, serious action would be taken against them. Reference stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE halwai