CASE LAW: PREM SURANA V ADDITIONAL MUNSIF AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
CITATION: AIR 2002 6SCC 722
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: AUGUST 13Th 2002
PETITIONER: Prem Surana
RESPONDENT: Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate and Anr.
APPEAL: Criminal appeal no.666 of 1994
(from the judgment and order dated 23.9.1994 of the Rajasthan High Court in Crl. Contempt petition no. 5272 of 1993)
JUDGES ON THE BENCH: Umesh C. Banerjee and B. N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
ADVOCATES ON THE CASE: P. N. Misra, Senior Advocate (Ms Shobha and Irshad Ahmed, Advocates with him) for the appellant
Ranji Thomas, Ms Bharati Upadhyay and Javed Mahmud Rao, Advocates, for the respondents.
ACTS :
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT
Section 15 – Criminal Contempt – Appellant, a lawyer by profession, charged with a criminal offence and arraigned as an accused in the court of the additional magistrate and judicial magistrate – Appellant accused of abusing the judicial officer for denying his request for exemption from personal appearance and striking the officer in front of the court – Initiation of criminal contempt proceedings based on the statement made by the presiding officer who was struck by the appellant The judicial official was given what was actually a slap in the face.
– Appellant, a lawyer by profession, charged with a criminal offence and arraigned as an accused in the court of the additional magistrate and judicial magistrate – Appellant accused of abusing the judicial officer for denying his request for exemption from personal appearance and striking the officer in front of the court – Initiation of criminal contempt proceedings based on the statement made by the presiding officer who was struck by the appellant The judicial official was given what was actually a slap in the face.
FACTS OF THE CASE :
Coming to the facts of the matter under consideration an advocate of Jaipur district court slapped a magistrate in the open court. Upon using most above and unseemly language the reason being his application for exemption. From appearance was disallowed by the court and the issuance of a non-bailable warrant.
Incidentally, be it placed on record that there was a criminal proceeding pending in which the concerned advocate is the appellant. Herein was accused and on a date when the matter was fixed for hearing, the concerned accused left the court without permission.
No one can claim immunity from the operation of the law of contempt. In view of the matter, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
The bail as granted by the court on an earlier occasion stands cancelled. The appropriate police authorities to lodge him in Tihar jail.
ISSUES OF THE CASE :
Whether the punishment imposed on him was justified or not?
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE :
The appellant entered the courtroom and started abusing the magistrate. He gave a solid slap on the left cheek of the magistrate. This act was held to amount to interfering with proceedings and scandalising the court which also lowered the authority of the court in the public eyes.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE:
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was added to the statute book in order to instil confidence in the general populace regarding the fair and proper administration of justice in the nation. The act undoubtedly places a very potent weapon in the hands of the courts, but it is equally valid that they must use it with appropriate care and caution and for the greater good. The fundamental justification for the lawmakers’ decision to enshrine this specific regulation in the statute book is that it is intended to punish disrespectful behaviour and obstruction of the majesty of the law.
The slap on the judicial officer’s face is actually a slap on the justice delivery system in the nation. As a result, the issue of accepting an apology or an undertaking, as well as the issue of any mercy with regard to the punishment, cannot and does not exist.
The justice system did not accept his apology and he was punished with simple imprisonment of two months and had to pay a fine of Rs.2000.
