State of M.P. Thr. Distt. Judge, Ujjain Vs. Shivmohan Singh and Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1061 of 1995
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1062-1082 of 1995
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1062-1082 of 1995
Petitioner: State of M.P. Thr. Distt. Judge, Ujjain
Respondent: Shivmohan Singh and Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1061 of 1995
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1062-1082 of 1995
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1062-1082 of 1995
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 31, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Contempt of Court – Litigant and his advocate alleged to have committed a series of acts constituting contempt of court – Both punished with four months imprisonment in respect of one such case – After having served the sentence, both tendering unconditional apology in respect of other cases – High Court accepting the apology and exonerating them – Appeal against such exoneration. Held even if the High Court had opted not to accept the apology, it would have ordered the sentences to be run concurrently. Therefore, the proposition of non-acceptance of the apology was immaterial, more so after a lapse of many years. No further action required against respondents.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. In all these appeals, a litigant and his advocate were dealt with under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act
for making scurrilous allegations against some judicial personage repeatedly and at different stages. In one such case (miscellaneous criminal case no. 2733/91) the High Court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for four months on the first respondent litigant and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. A sentence was imposed on the advocate who is second respondent herein, to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. We are told by both sides that both the respondents had undergone the sentence of imprisonment and remitted the fine. In regard to the other contempt proceedings, the respondents tendered unconditional apology and that was accepted on 8.3.95 and they were exonerated from the sentence in those cases. These appeals have been filed in challenge of the said order, dated 8.3.95.
2. We are told that the respondents have committed all the contempt activities only prior to the conviction and sentence imposed on them in miscellaneous criminal case no. 2733/91. If so, it is immaterial that the apology tendered by them was not accepted and the same sentence was imposed on them in those cases also because the High Court would only have directed all the sentences to run concurrently. For the aforesaid reason, it is not necessary to consider the question whether the unconditional apology should at all have been accepted by the High Court, particularly at this distance of time. This is more so because the respondent – advocate who was convicted and sentenced in one case cannot practise in the courts in respect of which he committed contempt until he purges himself. We do not want to be vindictive and therefore, we do not think it worthwhile to take any further action against the respondents.
3. Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
1. In all these appeals, a litigant and his advocate were dealt with under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act
for making scurrilous allegations against some judicial personage repeatedly and at different stages. In one such case (miscellaneous criminal case no. 2733/91) the High Court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for four months on the first respondent litigant and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. A sentence was imposed on the advocate who is second respondent herein, to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. We are told by both sides that both the respondents had undergone the sentence of imprisonment and remitted the fine. In regard to the other contempt proceedings, the respondents tendered unconditional apology and that was accepted on 8.3.95 and they were exonerated from the sentence in those cases. These appeals have been filed in challenge of the said order, dated 8.3.95.
2. We are told that the respondents have committed all the contempt activities only prior to the conviction and sentence imposed on them in miscellaneous criminal case no. 2733/91. If so, it is immaterial that the apology tendered by them was not accepted and the same sentence was imposed on them in those cases also because the High Court would only have directed all the sentences to run concurrently. For the aforesaid reason, it is not necessary to consider the question whether the unconditional apology should at all have been accepted by the High Court, particularly at this distance of time. This is more so because the respondent – advocate who was convicted and sentenced in one case cannot practise in the courts in respect of which he committed contempt until he purges himself. We do not want to be vindictive and therefore, we do not think it worthwhile to take any further action against the respondents.
3. Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
