Disruptive behavior in court constitutes contempt of court under IPC Section 228, and the court may consider modifying a sentence based on a mercy petition.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Appeal No. 7-S/10 of 2008 dated 26.6.2008, whereby learned appellate court while maintaining the conviction of petitioner/accused under Section 228 of IPC, has modified the sentence imposed upon her by the learned trial court and has ordered the accused to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- and to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 07 days for want of payment of fine. Petitioner/accused has also laid challenge to the judgment passed by learned trial court i.e. the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (4), Shimla dated 20.3.2008 vide which learned trial court convicted the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 228 of IPC and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- and to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 07 days in case of default of payment of fine.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that a complaint was filed against the present petitioner by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla to the effect that on 24.8.2005 at around 12:00 noon when complainant was performing his duties as Addl. CJM, Shimla and was dealing with criminal cases, one case titled State Vs. Suresh Kumar bearing No. 281/2 of 2004 was listed for recording the evidence of witnesses. In the said case when statement of Subhadra Kumari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) was being recorded as prosecution witness, she started quarreling with Sh. M.L. Brakta, Advocate who was the defence counsel for accused Suresh Kumar. As per the complainant, accused interfered in the proceedings time and again. On the asking of complainant to remain calm, accused started shouting and stating that she had no faith in the system and particularly in the court of the complainant. Accused shouted that her case be closed and thrown in the dustbin. Accused was advised by the complainant as well as by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who was conducting the case on behalf of the prosecution as well as other lawyers present in the Court to maintain the decorum in the Court, however, she continued her belligerent behavior. Accused was also informed that the said behavior of her would amount to contempt of Court but accused stated that she did not care for anyone. In these circumstances a lady constable was called by the complainant. Thereafter cognizance was taken of the said contemptuous behavior of accused by the complainant for offence punishable under Section 228 of IPC as per the provisions of Section 345 Cr.P.C and preferred a complaint under Section 346 of Cr. P.C. As accused did not furnish any security before the complainant, accused was forwarded in the custody of lady constable Versha along with the complaint to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who assigned the case to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (4), Shimla.

3. On consideration of the complaint, notice of accusation was put to the accused for having committed offence punishable under Section 228 of IPC to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. On the basis of evidence produced on record both ocular as well as documentary by the prosecution, learned trial court held that it stood proved on record that accused had interfered in the court proceedings and had cast aspersion by shouting that she had no faith in the system and that her file be thrown into the dustbin. Leaned trial court also negated the plea of the accused that the procedure prescribed under Section 346 of Cr.P.C. was not followed in the matter. Learned trial court also held that there was no merit in the contention of the accused that the non examination of lady constable Versha demolished the case of the prose