Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79852
MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Tharani, J.
Samwell Rajendran G. v. Principal District and Sessions Judge Thoothukudi
M.C.No. 1 of 2020
The court must ensure a reasonable opportunity for explanation is provided, particularly in virtual proceedings, before imposing sanctions.
Headnote:This judgment addresses an appeal regarding an order passed under Section 228 of IPC and Section 345 of Cr.P.C., stemming from an incident involving unparliamentary language used during a virtual court hearing. The appellant contended that there was a lack of opportunity for personal hearing, asserting that the words used were aimed at a third party, not the court. The court recognized the necessity of providing an opportunity for explanation and accepted the appellant's apology, ultimately setting aside the fine imposed and refunding the amount paid. The ruling emphasized the importance of fair legal processes especially during virtual proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of the appeal regarding the imposition of a fine. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details surrounding the incident and context of the fine imposed. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments about the need for a personal hearing in light of virtual trial challenges. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. the necessity of leniency and refund of the imposed fine. (Para 23) |
1. This appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed in M.C.No. 1 of 2020 dated 09.06.2020 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.
2. The facts of the case in brief is as follows:
On 08.06.2020, while the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge was hearing bail applications through whatsapp video call at about 11.45 a.m., advocate Mr.Samwell Rajendran appeared on behalf of advocate Mr.Raja for representing the case in Cr.M.P. Nos.1615 of 2020 and 1616 of 2020, when he was representing the Court, all of sudden, uttered unparliamentary words and the same was witnessed by learned Public Prosecutor, Stenographer, Protocol Officer and System Analyst. The learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi issued a show - cause notice under S.228 of IPC r/w. S.345 of Cr.P.C., through email and the advocate sent a reply through email. The learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi being not satisfied with the explanation given by the contemnor, imposed a fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only) in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment and sent a copy of the order through email. The concerned advocate deposited the fine amount in the Court. The learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi has referred the matter to the Bar Council. Against which, the petitioner filed this revision case.
3. The brief substance of the petition in this revision is as follows:
The order of the learned Principal District Judge is passed without providing reasonable opportunity to the revision petitioner. An opportunity for personal hearing was not given. In the reply given by the advocate instead of "this would not happen in future", it was wrongly typed as "it would not occur in due course". The learned Judge has mistakenly taken a view that this will not happen in a regular Court. If an opportunity for personal hearing was given, the appellant might have explained the situation. The words uttered were not against the Court or against the Court proceedings. The appellant has no displeasure towards the Court. There is no intentional insult or interruption to the Court. Before determining the punishment, an opportunity for the appellant was not given. Advocates were not accustomed to argue through whatsapp and when they are adjusting themselves to the technology, this incident has happened. Though the fine amount is minimal on monetary terms the damage to the reputation of an advocate having an unblemished record of 30 years practice is incalculable.
4. The brief substance of the report filed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi is as follows:
On 08.06.2020, when the learned Principal District Judge was hearing the bail in Cr.M.P. Nos.1615 and 1616 of 2020, the appellant appearing on behalf of another advocate by name, Raja has uttered the following words, [Editors Note: Vernacular matter omitted]. The same was witnessed by the learned Public Prosecutor, Stenographer, Protocol Officer and System Analyst. The Court has taken action against the advocate under S.228 of IPC r/w. S.345 of Cr.P.C., for uttering unparliamentary words interrupting the Court proceedings. Since the reply submitted by the appellant was not satisfactory, a fine under S.228 of IPC was imposed.
5. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is an advocate having unblemished service for the past 30 years and he has worked as a Government pleader for five years. The appellant is not well versed with the recent technologies. Due to signal problem, the appellant was representing the Court from his car, which was parked near the Court. After the completio
