PREM SURANA versus ADDL. MUNSIF AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 524 · Decided: 13-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE, B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PREM SURANA 
v. 
ADDL. MUNSIF AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND ANR. 
AUGUST 13, 2002 
B 
[U.C. BANERJEE AND B.N. AGRA WAL, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : 
ss.2(c) and 15(1)-Criminal contempt of subordinate court-Cognizance 
C of by High Court-Advocate, an accused in a criminal case before Judicial 
Magistrate, abusing and slapping the Judicial Magistrate in open court-
District Judge referred the matter to High Court-High Court recorded that 
the statement of the Presiding Officer was to be accepted unless it was proved 
to be wrong by cogent evidence, and concluded that the act was covered 
D within the definition of criminal contempt-It convicted and sentenced the 
advocate for 6 months imprisonment-Apology not found genuine or boa fide--
Held, the reference 1made to the High Court was valid and the cognizance 
taken did not suffer from any legal infirmity-Our justice delivery system 
would be in a swamp if this conduct of an advocate slapping a Judge in open 
court goes unnoticed and unpunished-Question of acceptance of any apology 
E or an undertaking of good behaviour does not and cannot arise, neither 
there can be any question of any leniency as regards the sentence-
Observation and conclusions as also findings of High Court concurred with. 
Board of Revenue, UP. v. Vinay Chand Mishra, AIR (1981) SC 723 and 
F Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madya Padesh, AIR (1992) SC 902, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 666 
of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.94 of the Rajasthan High Court 
G in Crl. Contempt Petition No. 5272of1993. 
H 
P.N. Mishra, Ms. Shobha and Irshad Ahmad for the Appellant. 
Ranji Thomas, Ms. Bharati Upadhyaya and Javed Mahmud Rao, for the 
Respondents. 
524 
PREM SURANA v. ADDL. MUNSIF AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 525 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
The instant criminal appeal depicts a rare unfortunate incident concerning 
a lawyer and thus an Officer of the Court. In the justice delivery system of 
the country members of the Bar are as much a party thereto as the Judges 
and it is a closest possible harmony between the Bar and the Bench that can 
yield the best results in achieving the objectives as enshrined in the B 
Constitution. 
Coming to the facts of the matter under consideration, an Advocate of 
Jaipur District Court slapped a Magistrate in the open Court upon using most 
above and unseemly language-the reason being his application for exemption 
from appearance was disallowed by the Court and issuance of a non-bailable C 
warrant. Incidentally, be it placed on record that there was a criminal proceeding 
pending in which the concerned Advocate being the appellant herein was an 
accused and on a date when the matter was fixed for hearing the concerned 
accused left the Court without permission from the Court by simply taking 
recourse to an application for exemption from appearance and without waiting D 
for the decision in the matter. The application was, however, dismissed and 
consequently a non-bailable warrant was issued. The version of the appellant 
herein and as is available on record seem to be that he was attending the 
funeral of a friend's father by reason where of he was not in a position to 
attend the Court. We are not expressing any opinion in that regard. But the 
circumstances which followed thereafter are not only unwarranted and E 
unfortunate but would shudder the judicial_ conscience of all and sundry. 
Members of the Bar has certain responsibility not only towards their clients 
but to the Court as well and it is the conjoint effort of the Bar and the Bench 
as noticed above that the administration of justice ought to be had. The 
justice delivery system envisages the same and there cannot be two opinion p 
on it. The Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur, 
recorded an order that in fact there was no proper ground for accepting the 
application for exemption of attendance and therefore the application was 
disallowed and orders were passed for summoning through arrest warrant and 
to be produced on 20. 12.1993 for opening the proceedings under Section 446 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
G 
The report of the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate reads as 
below:-
After passing the above order, at about 1.25 midday, Advocate Shri 
Prem Surana who is also an accused in this case, came in the Court and just H 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A after coming started

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.