Back
2002(5) Supreme 419
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
Umesh C. Banerjee & B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
Prem Surana -Appellant
versus
Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 1994
Decided on 13-8-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.N. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Shobha and Irshad Ahmad, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ranji Thomas, Ms. Bharati Upadhyay and Javed Mahmud Rao, Advocates.
Held : The High Court found Mr. Prem Surana guilty of committing gross criminal contempt of the court and thus sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of six months together with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. (Para 11)
The slap on the face of the Judicial Officer is in fact a slap on the face of the justice delivery system in the country and as such question of acceptance of any apology or an undertaking does not and cannot arise, neither there can be any question of any leniency as regards the sentence. The High Court, in our view, has dealt with the matter in its proper perspective and we do feel it expedient to record our concurrence with the observations and conclusions as also findings of the High Court. In that view of the matter, this appeal fails and is dismissed. The bail as granted by this Court on an earlier occasion stands cancelled. The accused - appellant who is present in the Court be taken into custody immediately for undergoing remaining period of sentence. The appropriate police authorities to lodge him in Tihar Jail presently but upon proper intimation to the appropriate authority at Jaipur, the appellant be sent to Jaipur in terms of the earlier directions of the High Court. (Paras 16 to 19)
ORDER
The instant criminal appeal depicts a rare unfortunate incident concerning a lawyer and thus an Officer of the Court. In the justice delivery system of the country members of the Bar are as much a party thereto as the Judges and it is a closest possible harmony between the Bar and the Bench that can yield the best results in achieving the objectives as enshrined in the Constitution.
2. 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 abusive and unseemly language-the reason being his application for exemption from appearance was disallowed by the Court and issuance of a non-bailable warrant. Incidentally, be it placed on record that there was a criminal proceeding pending in which the concerned Advocate being the appellant herein was an accused and on a date when the matter was fixed for hearing the concerned accused left the Court without permission from the Court by simply taking recourse to an application for exemption from appearance and without waiting for the decision in the matter. The application was, however, dismissed and consequently a non-bailable warrant was issued. The version of the appellant herein and as is available on record seem to be that he was attending the funeral of a friend s father by reason whereof he was not in a position to attend the Court. We are not expressing any opinion in that regard. But the circumstances which followed thereafter are not only unwarranted and unfortunate but would shudder the judicial conscience of all and sundry. Members of the Bar has certain responsibility not only towards their clients but to the Court as well and it is the conjoint effort of the Bar and the Bench as noticed above that the administration of justice ought to be had. The justice delivery system envisages the same and there cannot be two opinion on it. The Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur, recorded an order that in fact there was no proper ground for accepting the application for exemption of attendance and therefore the application was disallowed and orders were passed for summoning through arrest warrant and to be produced on 20.12.1993 for opening the proceedings under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The report of the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate reads as below:-
After passing the above order, at about 1.25 midday, Advocate Shri Prem Surana who is also an accused in this case, came in the Court and just after coming started abusing to me, and started to say "How you dared, to disallow our application for exemption of our presence . I told to him that Ashok Kumar Agarwal has not passed any order in his personal capacity, but the court has passed the orders even then keeping in view of your intention I will try to consider your case on the next date of hearing: but Shri Surana refuted and continued to abuse: I absolutely kept mum and continued to convince Shri Surana in good manner and Shri Surana in the words of threatening told that I will make complaint to D.J. Saaheb, upon this I told that whatever legal remedy is available with you, you are free to do such proceedings, upon this Shri Surana remained in the Court, and in very high speed continued to abuse, and tried to reach on the side of Dias in the left side of mine, on this Court Reader Shri Atmaram Sharma, Ram Behari Verma, LDC and Steno Om Prakash Pandey, Rajesh Mehra came ahead to catch Shri Surana, to whom Shri Surana backed and succeeded in coming ahead towards me and came to dias and gave a slap on my left cheek severely and told that "just come out, I show to you", after this immediately rescuing myself I went to my Chamber, and closed the Kundi of my Chamber in the inner side.
4. The conduct spoken of does not be speak of good behaviour, good gesture neither suits an advocate, a Judge has a duty to discharge and a Judge has passed his order in a manner as
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
