SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(SC) 156

A.P.SEN, M.P.THAKKAR
L. D. Jaikwal – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
DALVIR BHANDARI, N.N.SHARMA, Pankaj Verma, VIJAY GUPTA

JUDGMENT

THAKKAR, J. :—We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the slap-say sorry-and forget school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying sorry does not make the slapper poorer. Nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered through the very lips which not long ago slandered a judicial officer without the slightest compunction.

2. An Advocate whose client had been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Dehradun, was required to appear before the learned Judge to make his submissions on the question of sentence to be imposed on the accused upon his being found guilty of an offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Court. The learned Advocate appeared in a shirt-and-trouser-outfit is disregard of the rule requiring him to appear only in Court attire when appearing in his professional capacity. The learned Judge asked him to appear is the prescribed formal attire for being heard is his professional capacity. The learned Advocate apparently took umbrage and left the Court. Some other Advocate appeared on behalf of the accused who had been found guilty of a charge of corruption.



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top