- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 4 October 1994
- Bench
- M. M. Punchhi, K. Jayachandra Reddy
- Result
- Appeals disposed of.
Headnote
r:ontempt of Courts Act, 1971 :
Section !~Advocate raising the pitch of his voice and annoying Magistrate-Also using derogatory language against the Magistrate-After-wards circulating posters and staging demonstration-On report High Court taking action-Imposing fine-Ordering payment ofcertain sums to State Legal Aid Board-On appeal punishment limited to admonitiolt-Payment of fine set aside-Order regarding payment to State Legal Aid Board main-tained.
The Appellant, an Advocate was convicted by tbe High Court for committing Contempt of tbe Court of a Magistrate. The charges against him were raising tbe pitch of his voice to tbe annoyance of tbe Magistrate and using derogatory language against the Magistrate; he also got pub-lished and circulated certain posters and staged a demonstration. He was sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 2000. The appellant was also ordered to pay sums of Rs. 5000 and Rs. 10,000 to tbe State Legal Aid Board. Hence these appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, Ibis Court HELD : 1. When tbe appellant was warned of his unruly behaviour, he should have stopped and gone in tune witb tbe Magistrate and not retained a defiant and aggressive posture. [192-F)
2. Though the appellant is apologetic for his mis-behaviour, his apology at Ibis belated juncture is not accepted. The appellant is ad-. monished for his conduct under plenary powers of Ibis Court under tbe Constitution. The payment of line is set aside. However, tbe sums of Rs. 5000 and Rs. 10,000 which have been ordered to be paid by tbe appellant to the Kerala Legal Aid Board are meant for a good cause and tbose orders are maintained. [192·G·H, 193-A·B]
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
These are two appeals by a learned advocate who stands convicted under section 12 of the Contempt of Court" Act for having committed the contempt of the court of a learned Magistrate before whom he was conducting a trial for an accused person. Amongst others, one of the charges against the appellant was that he had at a certain juncture raised the pitch of his voice unusually high to the annoyance of the Learned Magistrate, and besides, had used derogatory language against him. After the incident, the appellant got published and circulated certain posters and caused a demonstration staged which got reported to the High Court whereupon action was taken against the appellant.
We have gone through both the judgments of the High Court and have heard learned counsel. We have no reason to disbelieve the learned Magistrate on the actual happenings, even though effort has been made by Mr. Anam, learned counsel for the appellant to question the same. We are of the view that when the appellant was warned of his unruly behaviour, he should have stopped and gone in tune with the learned Magistrate and not retained a defiant and aggressive posture. It shold be borne in mind by one and all that lawyers were created for the courts, not courts for the lawyers. The happy combination, whenever an aberration occurs, should in immediacy be restored and put to an even keel. Mr. Anam with all his sincerity has expressed before us that the appellant is apologitic for his misbehaviour. We regretfully will not be able to accept his apology at this belated juncture, but would rather admonish the appellant for his conduct under our plenary powers under the Constitution, which we do hereby. Having done so, we would set aside the payment of fine. The appellant need not pay pay the imposed fine Rs. 2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 1991. However, the sums of Rs.5000 and Rs. 10,000 which have been ordered to be paid by the appellant to the Kerala Legal Aid Board under orders under challenge in the respeciive two appeals are meant for a good cause and those orders we do not upset. This course should set everything at rest. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Case details
Arising from
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No .. 678 of 1991 etc.
From the Judgment and order dated 14.3.91 of the Kerala High Court in C.C.C. No. 27 of 1989.
Appearances
E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.
G. Vishwanathan Iyer, S. Balakrishnan, M.K.D. Namboodri and R.Sasiprabhu for the Respondent.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.