Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2827

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Vijay Bishnoi, Farjand Ali, JJ.
ADJ, Gulabpura – Appellant
Versus
Rameshchandra – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 3/2018
Decided On : 21-10-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Sandeep Shah, AAG-CUM-Sr. Advocate, Akshiti Singhvi, Asstt. to AAG, Mridul Jain and K.C. Sharma, Advocates., for the Appellant; J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, Pradeep Choudhary, Sampatti Choudhary and Ramesh Chandra, Advocates., for the Respondents

Unconditional apologies can mitigate witness misconduct, but the court may still impose penalties to deter unruly behavior.

Headnote:
Contempt - Witness Misconduct - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2(c)(ii), 2(c)(iii), 12(1) - Summary
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a witness in a criminal case, slapped the defence lawyer during cross-examination, leading to a complaint of contempt by the Additional District Judge. The respondent contended that he was provoked and injured by the lawyer's actions, but later tendered unconditional apologies.
Finding of the Court:

The respondent's unruly behavior was acknowledged, and despite attempts to justify his actions, he ultimately tendered unconditional apologies, leading the court to presume the allegations as true.
Issues: Allegations of witness misconduct, justification of actions, acceptance of unconditional apologies, and pendency of related criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Unconditional apologies can be accepted if genuine, and leniency may be shown considering the background of the individual. However, the court may still impose a monetary penalty for the misconduct.
Final Decision: The court accepted the respondent's unconditional apology, quashed related proceedings initiated by the respondent, and directed the respondent to deposit Rs. 25,000 with the District Legal Services Authority.

JUDGMENT

1. This contempt petition is registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, wherein it is stated that on 8.8.2018, the respondent-contemnor Shri Ramesh Chandra was deposing as a witness in Sessions Case No. 39/17 and during his cross-examination, he became agitated and slapped the defence lawyer. It is further stated in the complaint that by such act of the respondent-contemnor, the judicial work was interrupted as well as obstructed. Along with the reference letter, the Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara has forwarded a certified copy of the statement of the respondent-contemnor dated 8.8.2018 wherein, a pertinent note is marked by the court that the defence counsel put a question to the witness (respondent-contemnor) in reference to Ex. P/1, but the witness became agitated and slapped the defence counsel and on account of that, the statement of the witness could not be completed and proceedings had to be deferred.

2. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent-contemnor has filed reply to the contempt petition, wherein he has justified his act while stating therein that he was one of the witnesses i.e. (PW-1) in Sessions Case No. 39/17-State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra & Ors. and his examination-in-chief was done on 8.8.2018 and, thereafter, the defence lawyer commenced his cross-examination. It is stated that prior to that, before entering into the court, the respondent-contemnor was threatened by the said defence lawyer and was pressurized to dance to the tune of the said lawyer, however, the respondent-contemnor has refused to succumb to pressure exerted by the said lawyer, but still during the course of examination, the said lawyer was constantly trying to influence the respondent-contemnor to get the desired answers from him and not only this, while cross-examining the respondent-contemnor, the said lawyer was constantly hitting his legs and tried to provoke him though the respondent-contemnor time and again requested the said lawyer not to misbehave with him, but the said lawyer did not pay any heed to the request so made by the respondent-contemnor and at the time when there was a power cut, taking advantage of that, the said lawyer kicked the legs of the witness with force, as a result of which, the witness got his legs hurt and suffered the deep pain and as a result whereof he lost his mental equilibrium and he just gave a very soft slap to the said defence lawyer.

3. It is further stated that the respondent-contemnor had no intention to slap and, therefore, in fact did not slap the said lawyer. It is stated that the said lawyer has exaggerated the story and threatened the respondent-contemnor to face the dire consequences in the court itself. After stating this in the reply, it is further stated that even if assuming but not admitting that the act which has been complained of in the reference and attributed to the respondent-contemnor was there on his part, he tenders his unconditional apology for any such act if at all been done.

4. Thereafter, again the respondent-contemnor has filed an additional reply wherein, he has denied the allegations made in the reference and has claimed that since the Additional District Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara has filed a complaint under Section 228 IPC against him and the same is pending consideration in the court of ACJM, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, the present contempt proceedings filed against the respondent-contemnor be dropped till the matter is finally adjudicated by the concerned court under Section 228 IPC.

5. This Court vide order dated 21.8.2019 has read over the formal accusation of offence under Sections 2(c)(ii) and (iii) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act to the respondent-contemnor. In the said order, this Court has also observed that the case as against the respondent-contemnor is a summons case and has to be tried in a summary manner. Th