*1* conp.19.09.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.19 OF 2009 M.B.Datye. ..Petitioner -Versus- Vitthal Dadu Patil. ..Respondent ........... Mr.Gunratan Sadavarte, Amicus-curie for the Petitioner. Mr.Vitthal Dadu Patil, Respondent present in person. Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP, for the State. .......... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & A.M.THIPSAY, JJ. Date : 27th April, 2011. P.C. 1 This petition arises on a reference made under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Kolhapur on 07.11.2009. It appears that on 02.05.2009 the Respondent displayed a banner on the eastern side of the administrative building of the Court and near the entrance. In the said banner, in addition to other matter printed, some derogative word against one of the learned Judges of this Court was printed. The learned Judge of the Labour Court on reading the said banner, issued the show cause notice dated 05.05.2009 to the Respondent and in response, the Respondent appeared and submitted his reply and reiterated that he had put the said banner and he was the author of the said derogative words. The learned Judge of the Labour Court was, therefore, satisfied that there was cognizable case made out for criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and therefore, the learned Judge of the Labour Court made the reference. *2* conp.19.09.sxw 2 This Court by its order dated 05.10.2009 had issued the notice to the Respondent. He caused his appearance and submitted his reply as well. 3 Mr.Sadavarte, Advocate was appointed as an amicus-curie as per the order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Division Bench. The Respondent appeared as a party in person and we have heard him at length. We invited his attention to the following sentence as printed in the subject banner:- “hayakoaT- jaja irbaaolaao va esa.TI.AiQakaryaa,McaI saMganamatanao [aalaolaI gaunhogaarI gaRhmaM~I Aar.Aar.paTIla va nyaaya ivaQaI rajyamaM~I EaI hsana mauEaIf yaaMcaokDo karvaa[-caI maagaNaI k$nahI EaI iva.da.paTIla yaaMnaa nyaaya imaLalaa naahI.” 4 The replies filed by the Respondent before the Labour Court to the show cause notice as well as before us were read out to the Respondent and he fairly admitted that the above stated line could not have found place in the said banner and it amounted to casting aspersions on the learned Judge of this Court. The sentence so published stated that the learned Judge of this Court was hand in gloves with the officials of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) and the Minister for Home as well as the Law Minister failed to give justice to the Respondent in the alleged crime. 5 The Respondent is an ex-serviceman and after his discharge from the Armed Forces he was engaged as Watchman at the Industrial Court, Kolhapur on daily wages. Subsequently, he was employed by the MSRTC. In respect of his alleged legal dues, he had raised grievance against both of his employers. It appears that he had succeeded before the Industrial Court against the MSRTC in Revision Application No. 32/2000, however, the MSRTC challenged the said order before this *3* conp.19.09.sxw Court and while admitting the petition, the order passed by the Industrial Court came to be stayed. 6 The Respondent conceded before us that he ought not to have printed/published the above line in the banner which was in the public eyes and he accepted that the said publication brought the High Court as well as the learned Judge of this Court into disrepute. He also admitted that it was a scandalous publication which would tend to interfere in the course of administration of justice. He, therefore, expressed his regrets and tendered an unconditional apology and further assured us that he would not indulge in such acts against any member of the judiciary in future. He has placed before us his written apology and prayed for pardon. 7 We have observed the demeanor of the Respondent and we are satisfied that the apology tendered is bonafide. Under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the accused is to be discharged or the punishment awarded is to be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court. 8 In the premises, though we hold that the Respondent is guilty of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, we accept his written unconditional apology and discharge him from the proceedings. 9 The Contempt Petition is disposed off accordingly. (A.M.THIPSAY, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)