Procedural safeguards under Sections 345 and 346 of the Cr.P.C. are mandatory in contempt of court cases, and failure to comply results in a miscarriage of justice.

ORDER :

Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 07.06.2010 in Crl.A.No.46 of 2008 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, confirming the judgment dated 12.02.2008 in S.T.C.No.1 of 2008 passed by the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tuni whereby and whereunder the petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 228 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and convicted the petitioner under Section 241 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only).

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri I.V.N.Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, submitted that the learned Courts below based on assumptions, surmises and conjectures passed the impugned judgments; the learned Trial Court failed to follow the procedure properly while prosecuting the accused under Section 345 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ read with Section 228 of ‘the I.P.C’; the learned Trial Court in its judgment nowhere stated or mentioned about the nature and stage of the judicial proceedings in which the court was interrupted or insulted; the Appellate Court ought to have set aside the order of the learned Trial Court, but, unfortunately, confirmed the judgment mechanically without taking into consideration the provisions of Section 345 of ‘the Cr.P.C’; the petitioner-accused had not been given an opportunity of being heard as provided in the Section 345 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and the punishment was only fine and not sentence; the contents of the statements alleged to be recorded before the learned Court are not tallying with each other and are fully contradictory and conflicting to the judgment of the learned lower Court; the learned Appellate Court without appreciating the contentions and decisions relied upon by the accused upheld the judgement of the learned Trial Court and without any reasonable grounds confirmed the sentence of the learned Trial Court observing that the appellant pleaded the guilty and sworn statements of the advocates, advocate clerks and the litigant public were recorded. Eventually, it is argued that the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is illegal, perverse, and unjust, suffers from flagrant violation of procedure and miscarriage of justice and suffers from material irregularities and urged to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned judgments and acquit the petitioner.

4. Per contra, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court having gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Court rightly passed the judgment confirming the conviction passed against the petitioner and urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no material irregularities, flagrant miscarriage of justice and misreading of the evidence.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No.46 of 2008 dated 07.06.2010 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

7. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar , (2002) 6 SCC 650 wherein at Paragraph Nos.12 & 13 it is held as under:

“12. … It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal ex