Harjit Singh Bedi, A.C.J.

1. This matter arises out of the following facts:

One Anil Midha filed Crl. Misc. No. 56791-M of 2004 in this Court praying for the grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 198 dated 25.9.2004 Police Station City Abohar, Distt. Ferozepur registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Notice of motion was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab for appearance on behalf of the State for 26.10.2004. The matter could not be taken up on that day and was adjourned to 2.11.2004 by order. It was thereafter listed before M.M. Kumar, J. at Sr. No. 236 of the list for that date and was entrusted by the Advocate General, Punjab to Sh. K.K. Beniwal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for defence. As per the facts that have now come on record, it appears that at about 11.00 A.M. Sh. C.M. Munjal, who was the Senior Additional Advocate General, Punjab and an officer senior in rank to Mr Beniwal took the brief from him on instructions, orally given by the Advocate General to Sh. Munjal. As the case was low down in the list, it could not be taken on up on that date. Sh. Munjal, however, made a note on the police file, in the following terms:

2.11.04 Today, Mr. Baljinder Singh, H.C. 958 of P.S. City Abohar, came present with file in case "Anil Midha v. State of Punjab" Crl. Misc. 48428-M of 2004 before the Court of Honble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar of Punjab and Haryana High Court. Due to paucity of time, the case could not be taken up and the matter is adjourned to 9.12.04 and as per the oral direction of Honble Bench, the Petitioner Anil Midha is not to be arrested till the next date of hearing. Due to heavy list, this matter could not be heard as no bail application was heard today.

Sd/- C.M. Munjal, Addl. Advocate General, (PB), 02.11.04

2. The case was accordingly adjourned to 9.12.2004 and was ultimately dismissed on 3.1.2005 as it had, in the meanwhile, become infructuous. Archit Goyal, the complainant in the FIR, on finding that Anil Midha was not being arrested and on enquiry becoming cognizant of the fact, sent a letter dated 22.11.2004 to the Chief Justice with copies to M.M. Kumar, J. and several others calling for an inquiry into the matter as no order had been passed by M.M. Kumar, J. on 2.11.2004. This matter was taken up by M.M. Kumar, J. on 1.12.2004 on the judicial side and he recorded as follows:

A letter dated 22.11.2004 has been received from one Archit Goyal son of late Shri Pawan Kumar resident of H. No. 701, Gali No. 1-A, Abohar stating that oral orders have been passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 48428-M of 2004 staying the arrest of the Petitioner, Anil Midha, as the turn of the case could not mature on 2.11.2004. The letter is attached herewith. The contents of the letter when translated in English reads as under:

Most respectfully it is submitted that above mentioned case for grant of interim pre-arrest bail was fixed in the Court of Honble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar on 2.11.2004. Due to paucity of time, the hearing of the case was adjourned to 9.12.2004. But C.M. Munjal, Addl. Advocate General, who appeared in the Court of Honble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar on behalf of the State of Punjab has written with his own hand that the Honble Court has orally ordered not to arrest Shri Anil Midha till the next date. A photocopy of the note is appended. On the basis of the above note, the police was refused to arrest the accused. Shri C.M. Munjal has recorded in his self-contradictory note that due to long list, no case concerning bail matter could be heard. It has become doubtful that if no hearing has taken place then the question of oral orders would not arise. Hence, it is prayed that the matter be got deeply enquired and suitable action be taken and justice be done.

The file was summoned by me. On perusal of the file I find that neither the case was taken up for hearing on 2.11.2004 nor any such oral orders have been passed. This Court does not follow any practice of issuing any oral orders of staying arrest. Moreover, once the case is not taken up no question would arise for passing of any such order.

The office is directed to register the letter of the complainant as a separate Crl. Misc. Petition which shall be taken up along with Crl. Misc. No. 48428-M of 2004.

Notice of motion to AG, Punjab, for 6.12.2004.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, is directed to immediately take into his custody the police file along with the note dated 2.11.2004 of the State Counsel in case FIR No. 198 dated 25.9.2004 registered under Section 306 IPC at PS Abohar, District Ferozepur, and shall put it in a sealed cover which shall be sent to this Court expeditiously but positively by 6.12.2004.

The law officer who has prepared the note dated 2.11.2004 stating that oral orders staying the arrest of the Petitioner, Anil Midha were passed by this Court shall remain present in the Court on 6.12.2004 to explain his conduct as to how such a note was recorded by him on 2.11.2004.

A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, forthwith.

3. The file was placed before the Chief Justice on 4.12.2004 and he directed that the matter be placed before his Division Bench. In response to the notice issued to him by M.M. Kumar, J., Mr. Munjal replied thus:

1. That the deponent has gone through the records of Criminal Misc. No. 56791-M of 2004 (Anil Midha v. State of Punjab) and had the opportunity to peruse the orders of Honble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar dated 1.12.2004.

2. That at the very outset the deponent who has the highest regard for the dignity of the law and courts, deeply expresses his deep regret over the developments noticed by the Honble Single Bench in afore-mentioned order. Although the deponent has not committed any act with malicious intent yet it is his moral duty to accept the responsibility for what finally happened. Before the deponent explains the circumstances in which the note was recorded by him on the brief of above said criminal misc. petition on 2.11.2004, it is the deponents bounden duty to see the matter in a larger perceptive (perspective ) and to tender unconditional apology for recording a note which appeared to be a result of clear misunderstanding about the proceedings in Court of Honble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar dated 2.11.2004. Thus, the deponent reiterates his intention to express deep and sincere regret in recording the note in question.

3. That the deponent joined the Bar in the year 1978 and has done his best to uphold the high ethical standard of the profession not only individually but has also been active in enforcing the standards by way of his participation in the self regulatory body of bar. The deponent started practice in the District Bar of Ferozepur and held the office of the President in the year 1990-91. Later the deponent shifted to the High Court Bar in the same year. At present the deponent is an elected member and Chairman of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. Therefore, the deponent has been entrusted with the profound standard in the profession. It is precisely for the reason that the deponent considers it more important to sincerely acknowledge the error rather than indulging in a hair-splitting debate on the nitty-gritty of what had transpired in the Court.

4. That at this stage the deponent may briefly set out his version of the proceedings of Honble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar dated 2.11.2004, there was heavy roster with his Lordship and even the matters shown in the urgent list lasted well beyond 3.00 PM. Thereafter, his Lordship took up habeas corpus matters. As the Court hours were coming to a close at about 3.40 to 3.45 PM a number of learned Counsels who were present in the Court stood up to make request for hearing of their matters or for adjournments for a very short date. Most of these requests came from counsels who had either got no interim protection in applications under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure or where regular bail applications were pending for a very long period. The Honble Judge patiently heard requests being simultaneously made. In that atmosphere one had to concentrate hard to pick up the exact contents of the conversation as more than one person would speak at one time. Shri Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in criminal Misc. No. 48428-M of 2004 made an earnest request to the Honble Court either for hearing the matter on that very day or for interim protection. He persisted in his request on the ground that liberty of his client is under imminent threat. The Honble Judge inter alia asked the counsel as to when the case was registered in the course of this exchange the deponent formed a clear impression that the Court had observed that the Petitioner in above said Crl. Misc. be not arrested till the adjourned date of hearing. There is nothing unusual in such a course and since the matter could not be heard on merits the survival of his petition would depend on protection of that Petitioners liberty.

5. That the deponent made a concise and clear note on the basis of his perception of the proceedings and communicated the same to the I.O. Had there been any extraneous interest the deponent would not express himself in black and white.

6. That having read the order of Honble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar dated 1.12.2004 it would be futile to raise a controversy on the issue whether or not an observation was made that the Petitioner be not arrested till the next date of hearing. The deponent accepts his error in not correctly understanding the proceedings in the Court and regrets having recorded a note which does not appear to be an authentic record of what the Court observed. However, the deponent humbly submits that the entire development is a result of the deponent having misunderstood the contents of the exchange between the counsel on the one hand and the Court on the other hand and had absolutely no intention of either conveying an incorrect order or in any manner interfering with the administration of justice.

7. That the deponent has the highest regards for the esteemed institution of judiciary. The deponent expresses deep and sincere apology and humbly requests that the same may be accepted.

8. That the deponent further undertakes to act with extreme caution in such matters in future.

4. The complainant on the directions given by the Bench filed an affidavit supporting the facts highlighted in his letter. Mr. Munjal was also questioned as to his relationship with Anil Midha. He denied any such relationship. It was, however, later revealed by the amicus curiae that Mr. Munjal was infact closely related to Anil Midha and when confronted, this fact was so admitted by him. This matter then came up before the Court from time to time and on 9.2.2005, the Division Bench noted that an apology had been tendered by Mr. Munjal on the very first day and that he had also filed an affidavit subsequently but observing that an apology went to the sentence and could be accepted only upon a finding that contempt had been committed, went on to hear the matter. The Division Bench then held that Mr. Munjal, who was a Senior Law Officer and the Chairman of the Bar Council for the States of Punjab & Haryana and the Union Territory, had acted in an irresponsible manner and had brought dis-repute to the entire administration of justice and had scandalised the system in recording directions that had infact never been given by M.M. Kumar, J. It was accordingly found that he had committed criminal contempt as envisaged under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court accordingly framed a charge under Section 15(3) thereof in the following terms:

Whether in stating in your note dated 2.11.2004 "as per the oral directions of the Honble Bench, the Petitioner Anil Midha is not to be arrested till the next date of hearing" prepared in the capacity of Additional Advocate General of Punjab in the Police file in relation to Crl. Misc. No. 48428-M of 2004, who, as admitted by you before the High Court is brother of the wife of your own maternal brother and in intimating that fact to the Police, you have scandalized and attempted to interfere in the administration of justice of the Court (M.M. Kumar, J.) as envisaged under Section 2(c)(i) & (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and have thereby committed Criminal Contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of theand suitably punished under Section 12(1) of the said Act

5. The Division Bench thereafter issued notice to Mr. Munjal to show cause as to what he had to say in the matter. It is at this stage that the matter has come before us.

6. During the course of hearing today, Mr. S.P. Gupta, has argued that the conduct of Mr. Munjal was clearly reprehensible, the more so as he was the Chairman of the Bar Council for the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh and that he had scandalised the system of justice and he was, therefore, called upon to show cause to the charge framed and to plead guilty or not guilty.

7. Mr. R.S. Cheema, the learned Senior counsel for Mr. Munjal, has, however, pointed out that although the Division Bench in its order dated 9.2.2005 had prima facie held him guilty but from a reading of the order, it appeared that a firm finding of guilt had already been recorded and as the matter had been prejudged by the Bench, the question of pleading guilty or not guilty or a reply to the show cause was clearly unwarranted. He has also pleaded that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply to proceedings under the and as such the framing of a charge was alien thereto. In this connection, he has placed reliance on a case reported as Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat and others, 1991(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 566: AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2176. He has also pleaded that Mr. Munjal had tendered an apology on the very first date and on several subsequent occasions as well and even today, he was again tendering an apology, so that the matter may end here and now.

8. We have examined the matter in the background of the issues raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. We reproduce here para Nos. 20 and 21 of the order of the Division Bench dated 9.2.2005 in extenso:

20. It pains us to note as follows: Shri Munjal is one of Additional Advocate Generals of the State. He was representing the State of Punjab in the case. After holding the brief on behalf of the State of Punjab he undoubtedly owed a duty to the State of Punjab to place facts correctly, impartially and fairly to its Police authorities. Scandalising the Court (Court of M.M. Kumar, J.) in such manner was really polluting the very fountain of justice and has prima facie brought in disrepute the entire administration of justice. He has obviously misunderstood his functions both as a lawyer representing the interest of his client i.e. the State of Punjab and as an officer of the Court. By indulging in making a note in the Police papers he has prima facie abused his position both as a lawyer and an officer of the Court and has done distinct disservice to the State of Punjab in general and to the noble profession of law and the administration of justice in particular. We cannot ignore the incident and the facts recorded by M.M. Kumar, J.

21. We are prima facie of the view that in making a note on the police papers, Shri Munjal has scandalised the administration of justice of the Court of M.M. Kumar, J. in view of the fact recorded by him that he does not pass any oral directions altogether or had not made the alleged oral direction, as referred to in the note of Shri Munjal who has also attempted to interfere in the administration of justice of the Court of M.M. Kumar, J as envisaged under Section 2(c)(i) & (iii) of the aforementioned and thereby the has prima- facie committed criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the. Thus, we proceed to take action on our own motion as envisaged under Section 15(1) of the.

9. It is true that the word Prima facie has been used time and again by the Division Bench but the reproduction of the allegations and the tenor of the order clearly reveals that the Bench had already found him guilty. Mr. S.P. Gupta, the learned Senior Counsel, has, however, urged that it was open to the Court to devise its own procedure in a contempt matter. Undoubtedly, this is true but to our mind, the procedure that is adopted must have a semblance of fair play.

10. In Delhi Judicial Service Associations case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court observed as under:

The jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings and take seisin of the contempt is inherent in a Court of record and the procedures of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply to contempt proceedings. Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. The power to take proceedings for the Contempt of Court is an inherent power of a Court of record, the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to such proceedings. Since, the contempt proceedings are not in the nature of Criminal proceedings for an offence, the pendency of contempt proceedings cannot be regarded as criminal proceedings merely because it may end in imposing punishment on the contemner. A contemner is not in the position of an accused, it is open to the Court to cross-examine the contemner and even if the contemner is found to be guilty of contempt, the Court may accept apology and discharge the notice of contempt, whereas tendering of apology is no defence to the trial of a criminal offence. This peculiar feature distinguishes contempt proceedings from criminal proceedings. In a criminal trial where a person is accused of an offence there is a public prosecutor who prosecutes the case on behalf of the prosecution against the accused but in contempt proceedings the Court is both accuser as well as the Judge of the accusation as observed by Hidayatullah, C.J. in Debabrata Bandopadhyayas case : AIR 1969 SC 189 [LQ/SC/1968/159] . Contempt proceeding is sui generis, it has peculiar features which are not found in criminal proceedings. In this view the contemners do not stand in the position of a "person accused of an offence" merely on account of issue of notice of contempt by this Court and the Commission which was acting on behalf of this Court had full authority to record the testimony of the contemners.

10. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the light of what has been held above, it is clear that the Division Bench had in effect in its order dated 9.2.2005 held Mr. Munjal guilty of Contempt of Court. In this view of the matter, we are further of the opinion that it would indeed be unfair to call upon him to show cause to the charge at this stage.

11. Mr. Gupta has also urged that Mr. Munjal as Chairman of the Bar Council was bound to behave in a responsible manner, the moreso, as he had been entrusted with the authority to ensure that standards of professional conduct were maintained.

12. Undoubtedly, this is the correct position. We too are of the opinion that Mr. Munjal had clearly transgressed and violated the very canons of legal ethics that it was his duty to enforce. This Court has absolutely no sympathy with him on this account.

13. The question that now arises is as to what should be done in these circumstances.

14. We have perused the orders passed in these proceedings from time to time and have also seen the reports in the press and the other media as to this matter. We find that Mr. Munjals reputation has been battered and bruised and his standing as the Chairman of the Bar Council and as a Member of the Bar Association damaged beyond repair. More than all this, however, is the damage to his credibility and standing as a Professional - a fatal flaw in a lawyer. What more can be exacted from him Mr. Munjal has undoubtedly brought all these indignities on himself but we must also emphasise that as Judges, we have an obligation to ensure that the enormity of the misconduct and the pressure of public opinion often weaned in a particular direction on loose observations of the Court or on inaccurate and exaggerated reporting in the media must not colour our vision or influence our judgment. We accordingly feel that in the light of what has been held above, the ends of justice would be met, if Mr. Munjal contributes a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the Benevolent Fund of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association. We also accept Mr. Munjals apology at this stage. To go beyond this would be uncalled for.

15. We are told that Mr. Munjal has, in the meanwhile, made the deposit. The matter should now conclude. The rule is accordingly discharged.

Order accordingly.