JUDGMENT
Vishnu Sahai, J.
1. On a reference made by Mr. B. A. Shelar. Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of the Courts Act to this Court, for taking cognizance of the criminal contempt committed by M. S. Menon, Advocate, a Division Bench of this Court (Coram : G. D. Patil, and A. M. Khanwilkar. J.J.) vide its order dated 4.12.2000, issued notice to M. S. Menon, Advocate.
2. The factual matrix from which this notice arises, in short, is as under :
In the Court of Mr. B. A. Shelar. Metropolitan Magistrate. 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai. two criminal cases, namely. Criminal Case No. 4/S/ 2000 and 5/S/2000; both under Section 500/504 of the I.P.C., were pending. In the said cases, M. S. Menon, Advocate, made the following statements :
In Criminal Case No. 4/S/2000 :-
“I say that the Presiding Officer intentionally chose to overlook the above evidence as I have filed a complaint against him before SID & CMM and which is pending enquiry.
I say that the process has been issued out of malice/prejudice/vengeance and bias ignoring to look into the contents of letter dated 16.8.99 which in themselves are insufficient to attract an offence under section 504.”
In Criminal case No. 5/S/2000 :-
“I say that the Presiding Officer is admittedly aware of the complaint I have filed against him before the SID and CMM, and which is pending enquiry.
I say that the issuance of process is out of malice/prejudice/bias and vengeance and with intent to cause injury to me for which too action for criminal contempt and sanction for prosecution of the Presiding Officer is being sought.”
3. Mr. M. S. Menon. Advocate, who. as directed by us vide our order dated 7.3.2001. is present In the Court today. Although he has filed a detailed reply, but has not in any manner sought to justify the statements quoted above. Instead he has offered his unconditional apology and has expressed profound regret at making the said statements. He has urged that we should accept his unconditional apology and discharge thenotice.
4. We have reflected over Mr. M. S. Menon’s submission. We are constrained to observe that the offence of criminal contempt, under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. is made out against Mr. M. S. Menon, the contemnor. In our view, this is not a case, where on a mere acceptance of unconditional apology, the contemnor Mr. M. S. Menon. should be allowed to go scot-free. The reasons which have warranted us to reach such a conclusion are as under :
The contemnor, on his own admission made before us. is an Advocate of 15 years standing. He is not a layman. He was expected to know that the said statements made by him, were perse contemptuous. Despite that. he has made them. We make no bones In observing that an Advocate must always remember that he is an officer of the Court and should discharge his duties with dignity and restraint. His advocacy should not reflect his Identification with the party he represents.
5. It should be borne in mind that the bed-rock on which the Courts survive. is public confidence and when lawyers make such reprehensible
imputations against judicial officers, this Court cannot remain a mute spectator. If this Court were to do so, then public confidence in Judiciary would stand eroded and the citizenry would start believing that the imputations may be true. That indeed would be distressing.
6. It are the said circumstances which have prompted us not to accept the unconditional apology simpliciter made by Mr. M. S. Menon, the contemnor.
7. The question is what should be the punishment that should be inflicted on the contemnor. Since the contemnor has shown penitence and there appears to be contriteness in his apology, in our view, a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, a sentence of three months S.I. would meet the ends of justice.
8. In the result, we find the contemnor Mr. M. S. Menon, guilty of the offence of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo three months S.I. The fine shall be paid by the contemnor, within two weeks from today, before the Registrar of this Court who shall accept the same on production of a true copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.
A true copy of this order shall be sent to the Court of Mr. B. A. Shelar, Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra. Mumbai by the Office within one week from today.