9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , M.N. Sharma and O.P. Lal For The Respondent : Yogeshwar Prasad, (Miss) Rani Arora, S.K. Bagga and Others JUDGMENT: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 22 May 1974 of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Contempt Case No. 43 of 1973. The High Court issued notices to five persons on the ground that they commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court discharged the notices. The High Court yet made certain observations; some of which are confusing, some of which are conflicting and some of which are vague. If the High Court found that there was any contempt it should have punished the appellants. The High Court however discharged the notices. The High Court held that the Chairman of the Action Committee, described as contemner No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fused 'criminal contempt' with 'contu- macious conduct'. The matter becomes clear when the High Court said we do not propose to punish contemners Nos. 1 2 for the contumacious conduct of which we have adjudged them guilty though we express. our disapproval of that conduct and hope that the indiscretion will not be repeated . We are unable to find that the High Court found the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guilty, though we express our strong. disapproval of that conduct and hope that the indiscretion will not be repeat- ed . Counsel for the appellants did not justify the language of the resolution. There is no gainsaying that the members of the Bar did not act with dignity in regard to the resolu- tion. The language used by them was unfortunate. Counsel for the appellants rightly said that was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
