1 smcp7.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Suo Moto Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2010 Bombay High Court ....Petitioner Vs. The Bar Association, Thane & anr. ....Respondents None for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar with Mr. Amol P. Mhatre-advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Rajiv L. Patil with Anand Kulkarni-advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. J.P. Yagnik-APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 26, 2010. P.C. We have heard Mr. Rajiv Patil for the Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Dhakepalkhar for Respondent No. 1. We have perused the further affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2 sworn on 25th October, 2010. Although suo moto action was recommended against two Respondents, the Court while issuing notice on 19th July, 2010 has restricted it to Shri Prashant Panchakshari, Advocate - Respondent No. 2. In other words, no formal show-cause notice has been issued to Respondent No. 1. 2 smcp7.10 2. Insofar as Respondent No. 2 is concerned, he is responsible for publication of Article in ‘Thane Vaibhav’ dated 8th April, 2010. The delineated portion of the said article in our opinion leaves no manner of doubt that it is contemptuous and results in demeaning the majesty and authority not only of the District Court but also of the High Court. However, in retrospect the Respondent No. 2 has realised his mistake and has filed further affidavit before us accepting the fact that his article resulted in damaging the status of the Court for which reason has tendered unconditional apology and also given undertaking that in future he shall take utmost care in expressing views in public with regard to legal precept. The Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and reiterates his unconditional apology. 3. Although we are reminded of the famous observation of the Apex Court that the approach of first slap – say sorry and forget has no place in the school of thought in administration of contempt jurisdiction (see L.D. Jaikwal vs. State of U.P. (1984) 3 SCC 405), however, considering the fact that Respondent No. 2 has standing of almost 26 years at the Bar and has accepted that he was illadvised to venture in publication of the offending article in the newspaper which contains contemptuous observations, in our opinion, the Respondent No. 3 smcp7.10 2 can be given one opportunity to purge the contempt. We take the unconditional apology tendered by Respondent No. 2 on record and hope and trust that he would not indulge in any such publication in future. 4. We dispose of this Contempt Petition with the above observation and also place on record that if Respondent No. 2 indulges in any such activity in future, that will be viewed seriously including of having committed aggravated contempt. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)