Bona fide apology in criminal contempt may be accepted when it satisfies the Court, despite grave misconduct.

Unconditional apology in criminal contempt may be accepted where it is bona fide and satisfies the Court under the proviso and Explanation to Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; acceptance remains exceptional, not routine. The Court treated the conduct as grave interference with the administration of justice and inconsistent with an advocate's duty to the court, but also considered repeated affidavits of unconditional apology, earlier apologies before the Magistrate and High Court, and an assurance of future good conduct. On that basis, the apology was accepted and the appellants were discharged from the contempt finding.

---

---

Issues: Whether the unconditional apology tendered by the appellants for their conduct in court could be accepted so as to remit punishment and discharge them from the finding of criminal contempt.

Analysis: The conduct attributed to the appellants was treated as grave interference with the administration of justice and inconsistent with the duties of an advocate toward the court. At the same time, the Court considered the repeated affidavits of unconditional apology, the earlier apologies tendered before the Magistrate and the High Court, and the assurance of future good conduct. In applying the proviso and Explanation to Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court held that apology may be accepted when it is bona fide and to the satisfaction of the Court, while reiterating that acceptance of apology is ordinarily an exception and not a rule.

Conclusion: The unconditional apology was accepted and the appellants were discharged from the contempt finding.

---