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

1952 Supreme(HP) 24

CHOWDHRY
Mehar Chand – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent


Advocates:
K.C. Pandit, for Petitioner; S.N. Sethi, Govt. Advocate, for the State.

ORDER :- This is an application for review of the judgment of this Court passed on 20-8-1951 whereby, although seven other persons were discharged on their tendering unconditional apologies, the present petitioner was sentenced to a fine of Rs.100/- under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. The petitioner was treated differently from the others because he did not put in appearance in this Court on the date of hearing. He had sent a telegram asking for adjournment on the ground of sickness, but it was disregarded because no communication relating to a judicial matter can be acted upon unless made formally. An application for adjournment supported by a medical certificate was received from the petitioner subsequently, but that was too late because received after the judgment.

2. In the present petition for review of the said judgment, although the petitioner seeks in the first instance to explain that he had no complicity in the matter interpreted as amounting to a contempt of the Court, he tenders an unconditional apology at the end of the petition. Such an apology not being unqualified, might not have been accepted as satisfactory, but the learned counsel for the petition










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