S.N. SAHAY, J.

(1) THE respondents Maheswar Nath Chaturvedi, Nand Kishore Upmanyu, Virendra Lavania and J. P. Gautam stand charged as follows :-

"all of you, namely, S/sri Maheshwar Nath Chaturvedi, Nand Kishore Upmanyu, Virendra Lavania, J. P. Gautam, are charged that on 21st Feb. 1994 at about 12. 00 noon you entered into the court room of Sri P. S. Malhotra, II Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, and asked him : "why have you rejected the surrender application " The judge having told that since the aforesaid persons were not physically present in the court it was not possible to take them in custody. On this all of you became infuriated and aggressive and started hurling Filthy abuses on the aforesaid Sri P. S. Malhotra, and addressing the aforesaid Judge you said : "you want to be dictator. We shall not allow your dictatorship. You are encouraging corruption. " thereafter all of you abused naming mother and sister of the Judge. Apprehending violence the aforesaid Judge immediately rose up as it became impossible to continue judicial proceeding. All of you continued casting indiscriminately filthy abuses on the Judge naming his mother and sister when he was going to his chamber. All of you made vituperative remarks against the Judge and continued to hurl abuses even when the Judge retired in his chamber. Therefore, all of you have interfered with the due course of judicial proceeding of the court and have also scandalised and lowered the authority of the court and thereby have committed criminal contempt of the court punishable under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. "

(2) THE respondents were directed to appear in person before this Court on 5-9-1994 and show cause why they should not he punished for committing criminal contempt of Court. All the four respondents have appeared before the Court and have filed their affidavits. They were present at the hearing of the matter and are represented by Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi and Sri S. V. Goswami.

(3) SRI Kesari Nath Tripathi at the hearing urged that the respondents express regret for the whole incident and tender unqualified apology. He has submitted that respondents throw themselves at the mercy of the court. He has further stated that on the intervention of Hon'ble Administrative Judge work in the Civil Court at Mathura was resumed after the said incident which is now going on peacefully and smoothly and the relations between the Bench and Bar are cordial. He has also invited our attention to the fact that Sri P. S. Malhotra, learned Additional Sessions Judge, has himself sent a letter dated 20/07/1994, requesting the court to drop further proceedings in the matter so that peaceful and cordial relations with the Bar may be maintained. The relevant portion of the letter sent by Sri Malhotra is as follows :

"after the incident, the circumstances have changed. The work of the court is going on peacefully in a cordial atmosphere. I am of the opinion that the relations with the Bar may again become strained, if any action is taken at this juncture. "

(4) THE letter of Sri Malhotra has been forwarded by the learned District Judge with a covering letter dated 25/07/1994.

(5) WE have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the respondents in tendering apology before this court for the incident. Their apology was conveyed to the court in equal sincere terms by Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi. The respondents have also given statements in writing to the same effect. Even so, we requested the learned counsel for the respondents to communicate their regret for the incident and apology in such a manner that it may be realised and felt by others also. It is needless to observe that such incidents have frequently taken place and it has assumed in the dimension of a social malady. Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi was reminded of an ancient Pauranic story of two sages, Shankh and Likhit, according to which, the younger of the two who were brothers committed theft of an apple by eating it without permission of the elder brother in his Ashram; and even though the act was condoned by the elder brother, the younger one insisted for adequate punishment to be given to him for the commission of theft which was, according to the norms of the prevalent time, inflicted on him. Sri Kesari Nath Tripathi took the matter in the right spirit and at his instance the hearing was adjourned for due consideration. Today he has filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents to the effect that the respondents have, by way of prayschit (atonment) observed fast and have also held a meeting of Bar. Association in which it has been resolved and an undertaking has been given by each and every member of the Bar that no repetition of the aforesaid incident shall take place. The members of the Bar have collectively expressed regret for the whole affair. We think that in a situation like this, the apology tendered by the respondents should be accepted in the spirit in which it has been given. Punishment for crime or a wrong has a positive, but a limited role and a social malady cannot be eradicated merely by inflicting legal punishment. The object of punishing a condemner for committing contempt of court is to uphold the rule of law and to maintain the confidence of the people in the administration of justice. Public confidence in the administration of justice cannot be maintained unless the machinery for the administration of justice functions properly and the machinery cannot function unless all the component parts of the machinery stand at their proper place and perform the respective role assigned to them. It is necessary that a proper atmosphere is created and maintained for the same.

(6) FOR all these considerations and in view of the subsequent steps taken by the respondents referred to above, as also the letter of the complainant, Sri Malhotra, requesting for dropping the proceedings, we are of the opinion that the matter need not be proceeded further and the cause of justice would be sub-served in adequate measure, if the apology tendered by the respondents is accepted and proceedings are dropped. We do not find it proper or expedient in the circumstances of the case to inflict any punishment on the respondents for the matter with which they are charged before the court.

(7) THE notices issued to the respondents are, therefore, discharged and the proceedings are dropped. Order accordingly.