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

2007 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Special Judge (Atrocities) and Additional District and Session Judge, J
In the matter of Jagmohan Parashar
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 | S.15(2) | S.T. No. 330/04



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Shailendra Singh
For the Respondents: Susendra Singh Parihar, M. S. Yadav

The act of disrespecting court proceedings through abusive behavior constitutes criminal contempt, and an apology does not absolve one from the consequences.

Headnote:The court analyzed the conduct of the contemner under the Contempt of Courts Act and found him guilty of criminal contempt. The contemner, a police constable, hurled sandals at the Judge after sentencing, claiming mental instability. The apology was rejected due to the severity of the act and his prior ambivalence about guilt. The court emphasized the need for maintaining court dignity (Paras 3, 5, 17). The key issue was whether the apology could mitigate the contempt; the court concluded it could not (Para 6). The judgment ultimately imposed three months imprisonment and a fine (Para 18).

Table of Content
1. reference of contempt case established against accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contemner's behavior and his defense discussed. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. judicial observations on contempt implications. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. necessity for maintaining judicial dignity. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. decision on punishment imposed for contempt. (Para 17 , 18)

1. This is a reference under S.15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by Special Judge (Atrocities) and Additional District and Session Judge and Additional Session Judge, Gwalior.

2. Brief facts of the reference are that Shri Rajendra Mahajan, Special Judge (Atrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior was presiding over the session trial No. 330/04 in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh, through police station Kotwali, Gwalior against one accused Jagmohan. On 19-1-2007 the aforesaid session trial was listed for final judgment. At about 12 o'clock in the noon, the learned Judge called the case. Accused Jagmohan was present along with his Advocate Shri Shailendra Singh. Susendra Singh Parihar, Assistant Public Prosecutor was also present on behalf of the State. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was also assisted by Shri M. S. Yadav, Advocate. Accused Jagmohan was under custody. The judgment was pronounced and accused Jagmohan was found guilty under S.302 read with S.338 of IPC and thereafter, the learned Judge heard both the parties on the question of awarding the sentence. After hearing on the question of sentence, the learned Judge dictated the order of sentence and imposed sentence of life imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand). He also imposed two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under S.338 of IPC.

3. After hearing the sentence, the accused Jagmohan started abusing the Judge and took out his both the sandals which he was wearing and hurled them towards the Judge, which fell on dias. At the time of this incident, the Judge was on dias. Lawyers Jitendra Singh, Raja Yadav, Anant Bansal and Somveer Singh were present in the Court. The Court employees Arun Kadam, Girraj Verma, J. P. Namdeo, Sanjay Soni, Khuman Singh, Indrapal Singh Tomar (Court Moharar) and Smt. Nisha Bhatta were present, who had witnessed the incident. Thereafter, contempt proceedings were initiated against the accused Jagmohan and the matter was also reported to Police Station Inderganj, Gwalior and thereafter the Special Judge (Atrocities) has referred this matter to this Court under S.15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act for taking appropriate action.

4. After receiving the aforesaid reference, the same was placed before the Division Bench and on 29-1-2007 this Court directed to issue notice to respondent / accused Jagmohan. On 19-2-2007 this Court again directed the Superintendent Jail to produce the contemner Jagmohan in the Court. On 12-3-2007 contemner Jagmohan was present in the Court. He has filed his reply and in the reply he has indirectly admitted his guilt and tendered unconditional apology. In the reply it has been mentioned that a false case was registered and report was lodged against him. He is not guilty of any offence. It is mentioned that after hearing the sentence he lost his mental balance and innocently without any intention he committed the aforesaid incident. It is further stated that at that time, the contemner was under mental stress and he fell down, became unconscious and thereafter he was admitted in Neurology department. He has also submitted that he has respect for the Court. He has explained his family conditions in the reply and has prayed that unconditional apology be accepted and he be granted pardon.

5. We have heard and perused the allegations mentioned in the reference matter and we have also perused the reply and unconditional apology submitted by the contemner Jagmohan. It is not in dispute that the contemner Jagmohan was a police constable. He was an accused in a criminal case and was prosecuted



















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 Back to top