IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL CCC NO.12 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL BENGALURU-560 001. ... COMPLAINANT (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) AND:
SRI. N. GOVINDE GOWDA ADVOCATE ROLL NO.195/88 NO..5, 1ST FLOOR, HMT BUILDING OPPOSITE TO CHIKKEGOWDA BUILDING T.G. EXTENSION HOSAKOTE-562 114. ... ACCUSED (BY SRI. AMARESH A. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN SRI. GOVINDE GOWDA, ADVOCATE, ROLL NO.195/88, NO.5, I FLOOR, H.M.T. BUILDING, OPPOSITE TO CHIKKEGWODA BUILDING, T.G. EXTENSION, HOSAKOTE-562 114, UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND TO PUNISH HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS CRL. CCC PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.08.2019 COMING ON THIS DAY, H.P. SANDESH J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER This contempt proceedings is initiated against the accused under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
2. Brief facts of the case:
The suo-motu Criminal Contempt Petition is filed against the accused on the basis of the letter dated 16.02.2017 addressed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru addressed to the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru along with the report submitted by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoskote - Sri H. Omkar Murthy vide letter dated 05.01.2017 requesting the Registrar General to register the contempt proceedings against the accused regarding conduct of the accused in the due course of judicial proceedings.
3. The gist of the letter which is marked as Ex.P7 is that the accused was appearing before the said Court. That on 19.08.2016, the Presiding Officer was recording the evidence of D.W.1 in O.S.No.29 of 2011 and the accused was representing the plaintiff in the said case. During the course of cross examination of D.W.1, the accused started reading the entire contents of the document. When the Court, informed him that it was not necessary to read the entire contents of the documents, the accused still kept on reading the contents of the documents, thereby wasting the time of the court. Therefore, the cross examination was closed. In support of the allegation, the copies of order sheet, deposition of D.W.1 are produced.
4. The other charge against the accused is that on 02.11.2016, when O.S.No.301 of 2011 was listed for cross examination of P.W.1, the accused, who was appearing for the plaintiff, started to interfere with the cross examination of P.W.1. Even though the Court alerted accused not to interfere, the accused continued to interfere in the cross examination of P.W.1 and also misbehaved in the open court.
5. The other charge against the accused is that, on 09.12.2016, the suit in O.S.No.163 of 2010 was listed for cross examination of P.W.1. In that case, the accused was appearing for the defendant. When the cross examination begin, the accused confronted the Xerox copy of the sketch to P.W.1. At that time, the Court refused to mark the said document, as it was a Xerox copy. The accused questioned the Court in a raised voice as to why it was not marked and threatened the Court that he would write a petition. Further, accused commanded the Court to read the Evidence Act and told the Presiding Officer that he is not the ‘Brahma’ and he has got the right to question the Court and thereby he insulted the Court. The complainant referring these acts in the complaint stated that the accused interfered in due course of judicial proceedings and in the administration of justice. The very behaviour of the accused is calculative in nature and is intended to scandalize and lower the authority of the Court and to obstruct the due course of judicial proceedings amounting to criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
6. Pursuant to this complaint, notice was issued to the accused and accused filed his reply to the contempt petition. The accused, in his reply statement denied the charges leveled against him. On perusal of the reply statement, it is clear that the same is contentious in nature. He has specifically denied the charges leveled against him on respective dates and has stated that he was questioning the witness about the documents as per the provisions of Sections 39, 61 and 146 of Evidence Act.
The accused was discharging his duties towards his client sincerely and honestly. The Court closed the cross examination of P.W.1 abruptly on that day and he kept quiet and thereafter, he made an application for recalling P.W.1 for further cross examination.
7. The accused in respect of the incident dated 02.11.2016 has contended that he did not appear on the said date before the Court and also did not interfere in the cross examination of P.W.1 since, he appeared before the Additional District Court, Bengaluru Rural District in R.A.No.303 of 2012 as his junior colleague was in charge of the said file and she had appeared on that day and the very allegation of misbehaviour is completely false.
8. With regard to the allegation of misbehavior while conducting the cross examination in O.S.No.163 of 2010 is also false. He was cross examining P.W.1 based on the Xerox copy of sketch produced by him and when the same was confronted to the witness, the witness admitted the said sketch. Though the Court refused to admit the document, the accused insisted to mark the document on the ground that the witness did not dispute the said document and the same is permissible. At that time, the Court told him that Court cannot mark the said document as it was not his father-in-law’s house. When he requested to mark the document, the Court further uttered that, if he remove the Coat, he will be rowdy and threatened the accused in the open Court. Hence, accused without any alternative has given representation to the advocate association. The advocate association called the meeting and resolution was passed. It is contended that Presiding Officer of the Court harassed the Advocates including one of the Lady Advocates Smt. G. Shantha, who has given representation on 07.09.2018. It is further stated that the matter has been settled with the intervention of Principal Civil Judge, Hosakote. The Additional Judge admitted his mistake and sought apology before the Advocates and thereafter, made the representation to the Principal District Judge with an intention to harass the accused which affects the right of the individual to practice even as per the Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is contented that the accused is only discharging his duties towards his clients and never scandalized or lowered the dignity of the Court as mentioned in the complaint. Hence, he prays this Court to drop the contempt proceedings since, he has got high regards to the judiciary and administration of justice.
9. The charge has been framed and plea of the accused has been recorded. He has denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. Hence, the complainant examined himself as CW.1 and also examined CWs.2 to 4 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P14.
10. On the other hand, the accused examined himself as DW.1 and four other witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 5 and got marked Exs.D1 to D12. The incriminating evidence of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. Heard the arguments of both the learned counsel for the complainant and the accused.
12. Learned counsel for the complainant, in her arguments, vehemently contended that the very act of the accused amounts to criminal contempt and scandalizes the authority of the Court. The accused had contested the matter making the counter allegation against the Presiding officer. The very conduct of the accused amounts to contempt of Court. The witnesses who have been examined including the Presiding Officer and also the witnesses who have witnessed the incident consistently deposed with regard to the acts of the accused. In support of her contention, she has relied upon the judgment in the case of MAHIPAL SINGH RANA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in AIR 2016 SC 3302 to contend that the accused used contemptuous language. Hence, the very conduct amounts to criminal contempt. She also referred to Para 24 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:
“It is a well settled proposition of law that in deciding whether the contempt is serious enough to merit imprisonment, the Court will take into account the likelihood of interference with the administration of justice and the culpability of the offender. The intention with which the act complained of is done is a material factor in determining what punishment, in a given case, would be appropriate.”
13. Further learned counsel referred to the judgment in the case of RAKESH TIWARI VS. ALOK PANDEY, CJM reported in LAWS (SC) 2019 5 69 and brought to the notice of this Court, para 8 regarding the role of a lawyer which reads as hereunder:
“The role of a lawyer is indispensable in the justice delivery system. He has to follow the professional ethics and also to maintain high standards. He has to assist the Court and also defend the interest of his client. He has to give due regard to his opponent and also to his counsel. What may be proper to others in the society, may be improper for him to do as he belongs to an intellectual class of the society and as a member of the noble profession, the expectations from him are accordingly higher. Advocates are held in high esteem in the society. The dignity of the Court is in fact, dignity of the system of which an Advocate being officer of the Court.”
14. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court paragraphs 15 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment to contend that in the similar circumstance, the Court held that the concerned advocate did not apologize and has maligned and scandalized the Subordinate Court. He has made a bare denial and has not shown any remorse for his misconduct and hence, he was sentenced appropriately. The counsel referring to this judgment would contend that in the case on hand also, the accused did not apologize and instead he contested and defended his act and also made the allegation against the Presiding Officer and contended that he has got the right to question the Court.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that the accused did not disrespect the Court at any point of time. He being an advocate practicing for the last 31 years, at no point of time scandalized the respect of the institution. The accused examined himself as DW1 and also examined other advocates, who were present on the respective dates of the alleged incident. All of them have spoken that no such untoward incident had occurred. Both the accused as well as the witnesses have categorically deposed that the accused did not make any comments on the Court and only requested the Court to mark the admitted documents without verifying the documents at the time of cross-examining the witnesses. The counsel would also submit that on 02.11.2016, the accused did not participate in the Court proceedings and on that day he came to Bengaluru to address the arguments in the criminal appeal before the Additional District Court, Bengaluru Rural District. Hence, there is no substance in the charges leveled against the accused. Hence, he prayed the Court to drop the proceedings.
16. The learned counsel for the accused in support of his arguments relied on the judgment in the case of THE STATE GOVERNMENT BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR v. M.L.
MANJUNATHA SHETT reported in AIR 1972 Mysore 263. Relevant portion of paragraph No.10 of the said judgment relied upon by him reads as follows:
“10. It is well settled that description given to a document is not determinative of the true nature of the transaction. True nature of the transaction has to be ascertained on reading the recitals in the document as a whole ”
17. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of SRI CHIKKA NARASAPPA AND ANOTHER v. SMT. VENKATAMMA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2015 KAR 907 regarding proof and relevancy of a document. The relevant portion of the judgment relied upon by him reads as follows:
“HELD, (a) Under the Evidence Act, admissibility is the rule and exclusion is an exception. Where a Court has doubt as to the admissibility of a document and its decision, it is open to appeal, it is better to admit than to exclude in doubtful cases ”
18. The same has not been done by the Presiding Officer, even though the witness admitted the documents, which was confronted to him.
19. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of N. VENKATARAMANAPPA v. D.K. NAIKAR AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1978 KAR 57 and brought to the notice of this Court Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act regarding limitation. He also referred to the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of THE STATE OF GUJARAT v. KARANBHAI L. PARMAR reported in 1987 CRI.L.J. 1842 wherein with regard to Section 20 as well as Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating of the contempt proceedings, it has been held as follows:
“High Court issuing rule to contemnor to show cause-Rule must be accompanied by copy of reference.”
20. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA v. Y.K. SUBBANNA AND OTHERS reported in 1990 CRI.L.J. 1159, wherein it is held that the period of limitation prescribed by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is attracted to proceedings initiated by the High Court for contempt.
21. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BATHINA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY v. STATE OF MADRAS reported in AIR 1952 SC 149. The relevant portion of paragraph No.11 of the judgment relied upon by him reads as follows:
“11…………… What is made punishable in the Indian Penal Code is the offence of defamation as defamation and not as contempt of Court……….But a libel attacking the integrity of a Judge may not in the circumstances of a particular case amount to a contempt at all, although it may be the subject matter of a libel proceeding……”
22. The counsel also relied on paragraph No.27 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Mulgaokar reported in AIR 1978 SC 727, wherein it is held that the first rule in this branch of contempt power is a wise economy of use by the Court of this branch of its jurisdiction. The Court will act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardized by a gross and/or unfounded attack on the judges, where the attack is calculated to obstruct or destroy the judicial process. The counsel would contend that no such occasion has arisen in the case on hand and there was no willful act of the accused.
23. The learned counsel relied on paragraph No.14 of the the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of D.D. SAMUDRA v. VAZIRALLI PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER reported in 2006 CRI.L.J. 2628, wherein it is held that it is proper to make it clear that our judicial officers should not resort to action under the Contempt of Court Act too frequently and, in any case, too lightly. If, at all, any action is warranted, then the judicial officers should better ensure that it is properly taken, due enquiry is made and the required procedure is followed so that the action can be maintained.
24. The counsel also relied on paragraph No.18 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJESH KUMAR SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF M.P reported in AIR 2007 SC 2725, wherein it is held that this Court has repeatedly cautioned that the power to punish for contempt is not intended to be invoked or exercised routinely or mechanically, but with circumspection and restraint. The Courts should not readily infer an intention to scandalize courts or lowering the authority of the Court unless such intention is clearly established. Relying on this judgment, the counsel would contend that nothing is on record to show that the accused with an intention to scandalize the Court or lowering the authority of the Court reacted in the Court and the counsel contend in order to protect the interest of the client insisted the Court to mark the admitted document and the same has not been done.
25. The counsel relying on these judgments would contend that these judgments are aptly applicable to the case on hand and there are no grounds to punish the accused for the charges levelled against him and prayed this Court to drop the proceedings.
26. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for complainant and accused and considering the material available on record, the points that arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act?
(ii) What order?
27. The complainant in order to prove the charges leveled against the accused examined himself as CW-1 and also examined CWs-2 to 4 and got marked the documents at Exh.P.1 to 14. On the other hand, the accused examined himself as DW-1, other witnesses as DWs.2 to 5 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to D.12.
28. This Court has to analyze the material available on record in order to arrive at a conclusion whether the accused has committed the offence or not. Now let us consider both oral and documentary evidence available before the Court.
CW-1-complainant in his evidence reiterated the contents of Ex.P7 that the accused misbehaved in the Court; that his conduct scandalizes the authority of the Court and also asked the Court to study the Evidence Act. Further, he told the Presiding Officer that he is not ‘Brahma’ and only because he has a pen in his hands, he cannot write whatever he wants. In the cross examination, he admits that in the order-sheet, it is mentioned that PW.1 is present and cross examined. In the order-sheet dated 19.08.2016, CW.1 admits that the matter is adjourned for further evidence of defendant to 23.09.2016. CW.1 further admits that he has not stated in Ex.P1 that accused was wasting time of the Court. It is suggested that the accused did not appear before him on 21.06.2016 and the same was denied. CW.1 admits that in the order-sheet of R.A No.303 of 2012 which was pending before the Bengaluru Rural Court indicates that the appellant was represented by ‘Sri G.S’. and in the cause title of the order sheet, it is mentioned that the appellant’s counsel is Govinda Gowda. It is suggested that the colleague of the accused herself appeared in O.S.No.301 of 2011 on 02.11.2016 and the same was denied. It is elicited that when the Xerox copy of the document was confronted to the witness, the counsel for the plaintiff has objected to the same, but the same is not mentioned in the order sheet in Ex.P5. It is suggested that he has mentioned in the Court hall that it is not his father-in-law’s house to mark the document and the same was denied.
29. CW.2 is the Deputy Registrar who acted in pursuance of the authorization given to her to initiate the proceedings and she was not subjected to cross examination.
30. CW.3 is the Bench clerk of that particular Court. In his evidence, he reiterates the evidence of CW.1 with regard to the incidents dated 19.08.2016, 02.11.2016 and 09.12.2016. CW.3 also reiterates that the accused told the Presiding Officer that he is not ‘Brahma’. He should first study the Evidence Act and thereafter come to the Court. In the cross examination of CW.3, it is suggested that in O.S.No.301/2011 the junior of the accused appeared on 02.11.2016 and the same was denied. It is suggested that the Presiding Officer told the accused that it is not the accused father-in-law’s house to behave in such manner and the same was denied. It is elicited that he cannot show any document in proof of the presence of the accused on 02.11.2016. It is suggested that accused was neither present nor interfered in the proceedings and the same was denied.
31. CW.4 states that he was appearing for the defendant in O.S.No.301/2011. On 02.11.2016, he cross examined PW.1. At that time, the Presiding Officer told PW.1 not to raise his voice and shout, but to understand the question and to answer it. At that stage the accused started shouting loudly supporting the acts of the witness PW.1. In the cross examination of CW.4, it is elicited that the cross examination was only about half a page since PW.1 misbehaved in the Court.
32. The accused in his defence evidence reiterates the contents of the objection statement that no such incident has taken place except, he insisting the Court to mark the admitted document. In the cross examination, he admits that he has not produced any material to show that his colleague Smt.Sushma appeared in O.S.No.301/2011 on 02.11.2016. He also admits that there is no material to show that he was conducting the case from 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. in R.A No.303 of 2012 except the mention of his name in the order sheet. He also admits that the earlier two instances dated 19.08.2016 and 02.11.2016 have not been narrated by him in his representation vide Ex.D7. He denied the suggestion that he told the Court to read the Evidence Act and also called as not ‘Brahma’ and cannot do whatever he wants since he is having a pen in his hand.
33. DW.2 is another Advocate. In his evidence, he states that though the Presiding Officer refused to mark the document, the accused insisted to mark the document.
Hence, the Presiding Officer told that it is not his father in law’s house and thereafter the case was adjourned. He states that the accused did not say that he is not ‘Brahma’. On the other hand, he claims that the Presiding Officer told that the accused is indulging in third class practice. Hence, the accused gave the representation to the Association. In the cross examination, it is elicited that even though he was present on three days, he did not produce any material in proof of the same. It is suggested that accused only raised his voice and told the Officer to study the Evidence Act and come to Court, the same was denied. It is suggested that the Presiding Officer did not tell the accused that the same is not his father in law’s house to record whatever the accused states and the said suggestion was denied.
34. DW.3 is the junior counsel of accused No.1.
She reiterates the evidence of DW.1. In the cross examination, it is suggested that accused threatened the Court to file a petition and the same was denied. It is elicited that the observation made by the Presiding Officer in Ex.P2 vide order dated 19.08.2016 have not been challenged by the accused before any higher Court. The observations made in the order sheet of O.S.No.301/2011 dated 02.11.2016 against the accused have not been challenged in any higher Court. No complaint is given by the accused either to the Principal JMFC with regard to the incident to any higher authorities.
35. DW.4 is also an Advocate who is practicing in the same Court. In his evidence, he reiterates the evidence of CW.3 that the Court made comments on the accused that it never seen such third class practice. In the cross examination, he admits that there is no material to indicate that he was present in the Court on 02.11.2016. It is elicited that he does not know the total number of cases listed before the Court on that day.
36. Dw.5 is another Advocate. She also reiterates the evidence of DWs.2 to 4. She further states that the Court did not mark the document when the accused DW.1 insisted to mark the same. At that time the Court uttered that the same is not his father in law’s house to record whatever he states. She further states that the Presiding Officer told that he has never seen such third class practice. In the cross examination, it is elicited that she has not produced any document to show that she was attending her client’s case on that day. It is further elicited that herself and DW.3 i.e., the junior colleague of the accused are colleagues practising in the same Court. It is elicited that she is not a very close friend.
37. Having considered the evidence of both the complainant and accused and also the documents produced before this Court, this Court has to analyse the material with regard to the charges leveled against the accused. The scope of contempt proceedings is well defined. The citations given by the accused counsel regarding the admissibility of documents is not helpful to him and this Court cannot consider the same. The other contention regarding the circumstances are also not applicable, since the complaint is reported within a month of the last incident.
38. The case of the Presiding Officer in terms of Ex.P7 that the accused wasted the time while cross examining the witness PW.1 in O.S.No.29 of 2011 and when the same was brought to the notice of the accused, he misbehaved. Hence, the cross examination was taken as closed. A perusal of the evidence of both the complainant and the accused, no doubt it would disclose that the cross examination of PW.1 was closed. Thereafter an application was filed, but the same was rejected. Hence, a writ petition was filed before this Court in terms of Ex.P14 and this Court allowed the petition and permitted further cross examination of PW.1. While permitting, this Court directed the learned counsel to instruct his counterpart to proceed with the further cross examination of PW.1 without repeating questions and without wasting the Court’s time to cross-examine. The other incident which is disputed by the accused is that he did not appear before the Presiding Officer on 02.11.2016 since he was present at the Bengaluru Rural Court on that day.
39. On perusal of the documents marked by the complainant, it is clear that on 19.08.2016 PW.1 was cross examined by the plaintiff’s counsel. The case was posted for further evidence. Nothing is mentioned in the order sheet in Ex.P1 regarding the closure of evidence of PW.1 and an altercation has taken place between the accused and the Presiding Officer. Though it is stated that the accused was wasting time, nothing is mentioned in the order sheet. In the deposition, it is mentioned that witness was cross examined from 3.45 to 4.50 p.m. and the counsel, who was reading the documents was instructed not to go on reading the documents. The cross examination of PW.1 was taken as closed and subsequently in view of the order of the High Court, witness was further cross examined. The deposition would indicate that there was a reference that the counsel was wasting time though it is not mentioned in the order sheet. The complainant relied on the order sheet in O.S.No.301/2011 with regard to the contention of the accused regarding absence of the accused on 02.11.2016 in the Court. On the other hand the accused would contend that he was in Bengaluru Rural Court. On perusal of the order sheet dated 02.11.2016 it is mentioned that at the time of cross examination of PW.1 the counsel for the plaintiff interfered unnecessarily. Hence, cross examination of P.W.1 was taken as closed and posted the case to defendant evidence.
40. On perusal of Ex.P4 copy of the deposition, it is evident that learned counsel appearing for the defendant cross examined PW.1. However, nothing is mentioned in the order sheet regarding the interference of the plaintiff’s counsel. The complainant relied upon Ex.P6 the deposition copy regarding exchange of words that the accused used the word that the Court is not Brahma and he has got right to question the Court as mentioned in the deposition. It is also mentioned that the counsel insisted to mark the document, but the Court told that the Xerox copy cannot be marked and hence the accused immediately replied to read Evidence Act and come to Court.
41. It is pertinent to note that the very junior counsel, who has been examined on behalf of the accused categorically admitted in the cross examination that these proceedings of the Court have not been challenged before the higher Court. It is elicited in the cross examination of D.W.1 also that he has not produced any document to show that from morning 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. he was in the said Court. No doubt, the document relied upon by the accused that there was reference that the matter was argued before the Bengaluru Rural Court has not been substantiated by any proof, but there is a mention in the order sheet dated 02.11.2016 that cross examination was deferred on account of interference by the plaintiff’s counsel, who is the accused and the same has not been challenged, as admitted by DW.3. D.W.1 accused in his cross-examination categorically admits that he has not produced any material to show that his colleague Smt.Sushma appeared in O.S.No.301 of 2011. He further admits that the earlier two instances have not been stated in his representation to the association in terms of Ex.D7. He denies uttering the word ‘Brahma’ to the Court. The complainant also relies upon the evidence of Bench Clerk, who has been examined as C.W.3. In the cross examination of C.W.3, nothing is elicited with regard to the instances which had taken place in the Court.
42. Having considered the material available on record and also the answers elicited from the mouth of witnesses though the accused denies that he was not present in the Court on 02.11.2016, there is clear reference with regard to the what had exchanged between the Court and accused. The accused also did not dispute that he gave the representation in terms of Ex.P7 to the Association and immediately, meeting was also called, will substantiate that the incident has taken place on 09.12.2016. No doubt, the accused has examined the witnesses D.Ws.2, 4 and 5, who are the advocates and claim that they were present in the Court. In the cross examination, they have categorically admitted that they have not produced any document to show that they were present on that particular day. D.W.5, in the cross examination, admits that she is the friend of D.W.3 i.e., the junior counsel of accused.
43. Having considered the material on record, it is clear that the incident has taken place in the Court Hall and the accused has uttered words. It is specific in the complaint Ex.P7 that the accused scandalized the authority of the Court. The material placed before the Court is clear though the incident has taken place and the same has been mentioned on the order sheet specifically, the same was not challenged. It is pertinent to note that, if the document is not marked, the judicial remedy is available to the accused and instead of availing the remedy, he has questioned the Court and scandalized the authority of the Court. The accused did not stop but threatened the Court that he is going to write a petition. Apart from that the accused commanded the Court to read the Evidence Act. He also commented that the Presiding Officer is not the ‘Brahma’. He also got the right to question the Court and insulted the Court. The same is noting but interfering with due course of judicial proceedings and in the administration of justice. The very behaviour of the accused is calculative in nature and is intended to scandalize and lower the dignity of the Court. It counts to obstruction of the due course of judicial proceedings. Hence, it is clear that the accused has committed criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Consequently, he is liable to be convicted under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
44. This Court has to take note of the fact that the accused is aged about 60 years and is an Advocate practising from the last 31 years while imposing the sentence on him. The very object of the enactment is to punish the persons, who willfully and intentionally does an act scandalizing the Court. Since the incident has taken place while conducting the Court proceedings, the same has to be kept in mind, while imposing the sentence.
45. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following:
ORDER (i) The Petition is allowed.
(ii) The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in the Registry. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE AKC