LexARUN KUMAR YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. THRU DIST. JUDGE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 263
ARUN KUMAR YADAV
v.
STATE OF U.P. THRU DIST. JUDGE
(Criminal Appeal No. 1430 of 2010)
MAY 29, 2013
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 12 - Contempt of Court
A
B
- Accused (a litigant) using loud threatening utterances and
using unparliamentary language for Judicial Officer, while he C
was conducting court - Complainf.-Charge-sheet framed by
High Court - Accused initially denying the charges, but later
tendered unconditional apology - High Court did not accept
the apology and convicted the accused u/s.12 and sentenced
him to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and D
imposed fine of Rs.2,0001- with default clause - Appeal -
Held: Judicial proceeding has its own solemnity and sanctity
- It is obligation of everyone to behave with propriety when a
judicial proceeding is conducted - The sanctity of Jaw, which
is sustained through dignity of courts cannot be marred by
E
errant behaviour of any counsel or litigant or judge himself -
The apology was rightly rejected as the same was neither
prompt nor genuine - A concept of mercy and compassion
is ordinarily attracted keeping in view the infirmities of man's
nature and the fragile conduct - Conviction and sentence
upheld - However, the court expressed its displeasure on the
issue that High Court took a lenient view in sentencing the
accused.
F
R.K. Garg, Advocate vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
(1981) 3 SCC 166: 1981 (3) SCR 536; Mahabir Prasad G
Singh vs. Mis. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 287:
1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 675; Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary vs. State
(Delhi Administration) AIR 1984 SC 618: 1984 (2) SCR 438;
263
H
264
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A M.B. Sanghi vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (1991) 3
sec 600: 1991 (3) SCR 312; LO. Jaikwat vs. State of U.P.
(1984) 3 SCC 405: 1984 (3) SCR 833 - relied on.
In Re: Sanjiv Datta, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of
Information 1{3nd Broadcasting, New Delhi, Kai/ash Vasdev,
8 Advocate and Kitty Kumaramanglam (Smt.), Advocate 1995
(3) SCC 619: 1995 (3) SCR 450 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
c
1981 ca> SCR 536
relied on
Para 6
1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 675 relied on
Para7
1984 (2) SCR 438
relied on
Para 7
1995 (3) SCR 450
referred to
Para 9
D
1991 (3) SCR 312
relied on
Para 9
1984 (3) SCR 833
relied on
Para 11
CRIMll'\IAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
E No. 1430 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2007 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Contempt No.
13 of 2006.
F
T.N. Saxena, Jyoti Saxena, M.P. Shorawala for the
G
H
Appellant.
The fo'llowing Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act") against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2007 passed
by the HiQh Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal
ARUN KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU DIST. 265
JUDGE
Contempt No. 13 of 2006, by way of which the High Court has
A
convicted the appellant for committing the contempt of court
under Section 12 of the Act and sentenced him to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs2,000/- in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of
two weeks.
B
2. On 5.9.2005 the appellant moved an application to
surrender Chhandra Pal @ Badara s/o Shri Mathura under
various sections of the Indian Penal Code in pursuance of the
order passed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal
C
Procedure (for short "the Code") by the learned Judicial
Magistrate. As the offences mentioned in the application and
the process issued under Section 82 of the Code were
different, the court asked a report from the police station
concerned fixing the next date for disposal. About 3.45 p.m.,
when the Presiding Officer of the Court was in the midst of D
dictation of the order to his stenographer in another case, i.e.,
Original Suit No. 200/90 titled Balraj V. Rangpal, the appellant
came inside the Court and shouted loudly uttering as under: -
"As to why you did not take my accused in judicial custody.
E
You have passed arbitrary orders. Now, my accused would
be arrested and he would be encountered. You have done
injustice. I will see you. If you have your official force I am
also having my own force."
F
3. Apart from the aforesaid loud threatening utterances the
appellant had also used unparliamentary langExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.