SNARAYANABHATTA Vs. SPECIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SPECIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
Click here to view full judgement.
Sreenivasa Rao, J. -
(1.)The petitioner who is an Advocate of this Court practising at Srirangapatna challenges by this revision petition his conviction for an offence under Section 228, Penal Code by the Special First Class Magistrate at Srirangapatna based on the finding that the petitioner's conduct in the course of a proceeding in C. C. No. 1131/55 on his file amounted to insulting the Court and caused interruption to the proceedings.
(2.)The circumstances leading to the drawing up of proceedings by the learned Magistrate resulting in the conviction of the petitioner are as follows:
(3.)The petitioner was appearing for the accused in C. C. No. 1131/55. On 21-12-55 one Kempamma was examined as the second witness for the prosecution. In the course of her cross-examination the petitioner appears to have put a question to the witness seeking to elicit from her an answer involving the time factor, she gave the answer in terms of the hours of the clock i.e., as eight o'clock in the morning. The learned Magistrate presumably thought that the witness had not understood the significance of the use of the words in those terms and himself asked her to signify the hour by pointing out the position of the Sun. She appears to have stated that the position of the Sun was overhead. The learned Magistrate wanted to record the answer in those terms. The petitioner seems to have insisted upon her previous answer, i.e., in terms of the hours of the clock, also being recorded. This led to verbal exchange between the learned Magistrate and the petitioner in the course of which according to the learned Magistrate, the petitioner conducted himself in such a way as to insult the Court and to interrupt the Court's proceedings. Thereupon the learned Magistrate drew up proceedings narrating what according to him had taken place and asking the petitioner to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court under Section 228, Penal Code. The petitioner in answer submitted a statement which seeks to traverse In detail the facts narrated in the proceedings drawn up by the learned Magistrate.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.