Citation:
AIR 1981 SCE 1382 J8CC166
Case no:
Contempt appeal no. 19 of 1981, decided on April 22, 1981
Judges on the bench:
Y. V. Chandrachud, C. J. , A. P. Sen
Acts in the case:
section 19(1)(b) of the contempt of courts act, 1971
Order 9 rule 2 civil procedure code
Order 9 rule 2 CPC
PETITIONER:
R.K. GARG, ADVOCATE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The appellant practices as an advocate at Solen which is a district in the state of Himachal Pradesh. When the case was called for hearing, the learned judge noticed that the petitioner has not paid the processing fee as a result of which. The summons could not be issued to the respondent. The judge, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the petition under Order 9 rule 2 of the civil procedure code. Taking umbrage at the dismissal of the petition, the appellant hurled his shoe at the judge which hit him on the shoulder.
The judge asked his orderly to take the appellant into custody but the appellant slipped away. Also, the appellant has also successfully evaded the warrant and managed to prevent proceeding. Also upon hearing the appellant pointed a very pure of what had happened in the courtroom that day. The appellant had given an impure picture of the very genesis of the incident. Later he tendered an unconditional apology. In view, there the sentence was reduced to one month and a fine of Rs.1000.
ISSUE OF THE CASE:
Was the punishment given to him justified?
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE:
In our opinion, the appellant is guilty of conduct which is highly unbecoming of a practising lawyer. He hurled his shoes at the judge in order to evidently overcame him and bulled him into accepting his submission that the case should not be dismissed. The appellant did his best or worst to see that the petition was not dismissed for non-payment of the processing fee and found that the judge was not willing to accept his argument. He then took his shoe out and threw it at him.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE:
Such incidents early multiply considering the devaluation of respect for all authority whether in law education or politics. However, the court does not propose to impose a long sentence of imprisonment on the appellant since he has tendered an unconditional apology to the court and to the teamed trial judge. Accordingly, the court has reduced the sentence of six months to a period of one month and enhanced the fine from Rs. 200 to Rs.1000.
