9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Criminal contempt of court by an advocate for slapping a magistrate in open court. 2. Validity of the High Court's decision in finding the advocate guilty of criminal contempt. 3. Consideration of apology and undertaking by the advocate. 4. Applicability and interpretation of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5. Justification of the sentence awarded by the High Court. Analysis: 1. The case involved a rare incident where an advocate slapped a magistrate in open court due to the disallowance of his exemption application, leading to a criminal contempt charge. The court emphasized the importance of harmony between the Bar and the Bench for effective justice delivery. 2. The High Court found the advocate guilty of criminal contempt, stating that his actions lowered the authority of the court and interfered with judicial proceedings. The court referred to legal provisions empowering it to take cognizance of such contempt and concluded that the advocate's behavior scandalized the court. 3. Despite the advocate's apology and offer of an undertaking, the High Court deemed them insincere and not genuine. The court emphasized the need to maintain the purity and majesty of the justice system, rejecting any leniency due to the seriousness of the advocate's conduct. 4. The introduction of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 aimed to uphold confidence in the administration of justice. The court highlighted the Act's significance in addressing contemptuous conduct and preserving the sanctity of legal proceedings. 5. Upholding the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court concurred with the findings and observations. The court emphasized the duty to punish contemners to preserve the dignity of the judiciary and ensure the due course of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the advocate was ordered to serve the remaining sentence in custody.
|
