R K GARG Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 19 (1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, ("the Act"), against the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated November 17, 1980, in Contempt Case (Criminal) No. 7 of 1980 : Reported in 1981 Cri LJ 239 (Him Pra), whereby the appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/-.

(2.) The appellant practises as an Advocate at Solan which is a district place in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It appears that only one Court generally sits at Solan which is that of the senior Sub-Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Judge, who presides over that Court, also exercises the powers of a Rent Controller and of the Court of Small Causes. On June 18, 1980, Shri Kuldip Chand Sud, who was the Presiding Officer of the Court, was hearing a petition under the Rent Act in which the petitioner was represented by the appellant. When the case was called out for hearing, the learned Judge noticed that the petitioner had not paid the process fee, as a result of which the summons could not be issued to the respondent. The Judge therefore proceeded to dismiss the petition under Order 9, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Taking umbrage at the dismissal of the petition, the appellant hurled his shoe at the Judge which hit him on the shoulder The Judge asked his Orderly to take the appellant in custody but the appellant slipped away. The Judge evidently wanted to proceed under Section 228 of the Penal Code for which purpose he issued a warrant of arrest against the appellant. The appellant successfully evaded the warrant and managed to prevent proceedings being taken by the Judge for the contempt of his Court. The Judge then made a reference to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh under Section 15 (2) of the Act. The High Court issued notice to the appellant enclosing therewith a copy of the reference made by the Judge.

(3.) The appellant did not dispute in the High Court that he hurled a shoe at the Judge. He explained his conduct by saying that he acted under an irresistible impulse generated by the provocative language used by the Judge. The appellant's version is like this .