K A MOHAMMAD ALI Vs. C N PRASANNAN
LAWS(SC)-1994-10-56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 04,1994

K.A.MOHAMMED ALI Appellant
VERSUS
C.N.PRASANNAN Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

PHULESHWAR VS. MAYA NIRANJAN [LAWS(ALL)-2004-11-87] [REFERRED TO]
S SURYAPRAKASH RAO VS. P O FAMILY COURT [LAWS(APH)-1997-11-59] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1995-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. KULDIP SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2003-5-31] [REFERRED TO]
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. S.L. SARDANA [LAWS(P&H)-2002-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN VS. SETHUMADHAVAN [LAWS(KER)-2013-6-274] [REFERRED TO]
D C SAXENA VS. HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1996-7-29] [RELIED ON]
SUCHITRA DUBEY VS. STATE [LAWS(MPH)-2010-7-56] [REFERRED TO]
Marigowda by L.Rs. and others VS. Ningamma by L.Rs. and others [LAWS(KAR)-2000-11-93] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA DEVI VS. RITIKA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-11-40] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These are two appeals by a learned advocate who stands convicted under S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for having committed the contempt of the court of a learned Magistrate before whom he was conducting a trial for an accused person. Amongst others, one of the charges against the appellant was that he had at a certain juncture raised the pitch of his voice unusually high to the annoyance of the learned Magistrate, and besides, had used derogatory language against him. After the incident, the appellant got published and circulated certain posters and caused a demonstration staged which got reported to the High Court whereupon action was taken against the appellant.
(2.)We have gone through both the judgments of the High Court and have heard learned counsel. We have no reason to disbelieve the learned Magistrate on the actual happenings, even though effort has been made by Mr.Anam, learned counsel for the appellant to question the same. We are of the view that when the appellant was warned of his unruly behaviour, he should have stopped and gone in tune with the learned Magistrate and not retained a defiant and aggressive posture. It should be borne in mind by one and all that lawyers were created for the courts, not courts for the lawyers. The happy combination, whenever an aberration occurs, should in immediacy be restored and put to an even knee. Mr. Anam with all his sincerity has expressed before us that the appellants in apologetic for his misbehaviour. We regretfully will not be able to accept his apology at this belated juncture, but would rather admonish the appellant for his conduct under our plenary powers under the Constitution, which we do hereby. Having done so, we would set aside the payment of fine. The appellant need not pay the imposed fine of Rs.2000/- in Criminal Appeal No.678 of 1991. However, the sums of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- which have been ordered to be paid by the appellant to the Kerala Legal Aid Board under orders under challenge in the respective two appeals are meant for a good cause and those orders we do not upset. This course should set everything at rest. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.