Delhi High Court: In a criminal contempt case against an advocate who had used derogatory and filthy language in open court while in a drunken state, a Division Bench of Pratibha M. Singh* and Amit Sharma, JJ. held the advocate guilty of criminal contempt but refrained from imposing a sentence since he had already served a sentence of more than 5 months on the same allegations and happenings.
Background
In the present matter, a traffic challan was received by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic), Karkardooma Court (‘KKD Court’), Delhi on 15-10-2015. The Court observed that prima facie offences were made out and issued summons to the accused persons i.e. the driver and the owner of the vehicle.
The Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the occurrences of 30-10-2015 wherein it was stated that the accused owner of the vehicle along with his advocate (respondent) had appeared and asked about the order in the challan of the vehicle. When the Court apprised them of the fact that the matter had been adjourned for 31-10-2015, the advocate started shouting and using filthy language against the Presiding Judicial Officer in the open court.
When the Metropolitan Magistrate asked the advocate to furnish his details, he stated “Vakalatnama dekh lo, laga hua hai challan ke sath, usi mein hai mera naam”.
The record further mentioned that the advocate started making a nuisance in the court by shouting to such an extent that it became impossible to write orders and the court work had to be stopped. It was again made clear that the matter had already been adjourned for 31-10-2015.
The record mentioned that it was evident from the smell of the advocate’s breath that he was drunk and thus, he was asked to leave the court. On this, the advocate became even more aggressive and threatened the Presiding Judicial Officer once again. His use of filthy and abusive language in open court outraged the modesty of the female officer and insulted the dignity of the court.
Upon being asked for his particulars and to stop for the breath test, the advocate ran from the court. Further, the Metropolitan Magistrate noted that the President of the Bar Association, KKD Courts, Delhi, along with 3 advocates, came to his chamber and requested to solve the matter without any formal complaint and to settle by way of social method.
In addition to the present proceedings, a First Information Report (‘FIR’) dated 31-10-2015 was also registered under Sections 186/189/188/228/354-A/509/353 of the Penal Code, 18601 (‘IPC’) in Farsh Bazar Police Station upon complaint of the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic). Subsequently, the investigation was completed and a charge sheet was filed on 08-12-2016.
The Trial Court, vide Judgement dated 28-09-2019, held the advocate guilty and convicted him under Sections 186/189/228/509/353 of the IPC2. The advocate had challenged the aforesaid Judgment and Order which was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide Order dated 20-04-2023 while modifying the order on sentence by including a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by the advocate.
On the last date of hearing i.e., 26-07-2024, a legal issue was raised by the advocate that the present contempt petition could not continue given Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘Act’).
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted the advocate’s contention wherein it was stated that as per the proviso of Section 10 of the Act if a criminal case is pursued and the prosecution ensues for the same contempt, no petition of contempt could be entertained.
The Court referred to Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras (1952) 1 SCC 154 as well as Daroga Singh v. B.K. Pandey (2004) 5 SCC 26 and stated that the Supreme Court had rejected this submission and held that the jurisdiction of a court dealing with contempt is quite broad compared to the provisions of the IPC. It was also held that since the contempt itself was not punishable under IPC, the bar would not apply. Thus, the Court stated that the legal issue stood settled.
The Court stated that a perusal of the language used by the advocate for the Judicial Officer did not leave an iota of doubt that it would fall in the definition of criminal contempt as defined in the Act. The Court noted that the Judicial Officer was a lady and the manner in which the advocate addressed her was completely unacceptable.
Further, the Court stated that appearing before the Court in a drunken state is unpardonable and the same was contempt on the face of the Court. Thus, the Court undoubtedly held that the advocate was guilty of criminal contempt.
The Court was inclined to punish the advocate for criminal contempt but did not impose a further sentence on him since he had already served a sentence of more than five months on the same allegations and happenings. The period of sentence already served by the advocate was held as punishment for the present criminal contempt.
The contempt petition was disposed of.
[Court on its own motion v. Sanjay Rathod, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5901, Decided on 22-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner — Advocate Vrinda Grover (Amicus), Advocate Sautik Banerjee, Advocate Devika Tulsiyan
For Respondent — Sr. Advocate Rakesh Tiku, Advocate Anil Kumar Varshneya, Advocate Sandeep Kumar
1. 221/224/223/267/75/79/132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
2. 221/224/267/79/132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
