Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 678 of 1991
PETITIONER:
K.A. MOHAMMED ALI
RESPONDENT:
C.N. PRASANNAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/10/1994
BENCH:
MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI & K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1994 SUPPL. (4) SCR 191
The following Order of the Court was delivered ;
These are two appeals by a learned advocate who stands convicted under
section 12 of the Contempt of Courts 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 should 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 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
respective 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.