K.A. Mohammed Ali vs C.N. Prasannan
- Neutral1994 INSC 438
- AIRAIR 1995 SC 454
- SCR[1994] Supp (4) SCR 191
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
When a lawyer conducting a trial before a court is warned by the judge for unruly behaviour, including raising his voice unusually high and using derogatory language, he is obliged to immediately cease such conduct and comply with the judge's directions rather than maintain a defiant and aggressive posture; failure to do so constitutes contempt of court under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. A belated apology for misbehaviour in court, offered only at the appellate stage after the fact, may not be accepted as grounds for remitting punishment, though the court retains discretion to remit fines imposed for contempt while upholding orders directing payment to charitable causes such as a legal aid board.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
These are two appeals by a learned advocate who stands convicted under section 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.
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 keel. Mr. Anam with all his sincerity has expressed before us that the appellant is apologitic 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 Rs; 2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 678 Of 1991, However, the sums of Rs.5000 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.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free