L D JAIKWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap-say sorry-and forget' school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying 'sorry' does not make the slapper poorer. Nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered through the very lips which not long ago slandered a judicial officer without the slightest compunction.

(2.) An Advocate whose client had been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Dehradun, was required to appear before the learned Judge to make his submissions on the question of 'sentence' to be imposed on the accused upon his being found guilty of an offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Court. The learned Advocate appeared in a shirt-and-trouser-outfit is disregard of the rule requiring him to appear only in Court attire when appearing in his professional capacity. The learned Judge asked him to appear is the prescribed formal attire for being heard is his professional capacity. The learned Advocate apparently took umbrage and left the Court. Some other Advocate appeared on behalf of the accused who had been found guilty of a charge of corruption. The learned Judge imposed a sentence of 4 years' R. I. which may have been considered to be on the high side. The matter in that case could have been carried to the High Court by way of an appeal, both, on the question of conviction, as also, on the question of sentence. But so far as the Court of the Special Judge was concerned, as the judgment had been pronounced and nothing more remained to be done by that Court. The matter should have rested there. The appellant, a senior Advocate of long standing (not an immature inexperienced junior), however made a written application to the learned Special Judge couched in scurrilous language making the imputation that the Judge was a "corrupt judge" and adding that he was "contaminating the seat of justice". A threat was also held out that a camplaint was being lodged to higher authorities that he was corrupt and did not deserve to be retained in service. The offending portion may better be quoted:-

(3.) There is no known provision for making such an application after a matter is disposed of by a Judge. Nor was any legal purpose to be served making such an application. Why was it then made Obviously to terrorize and harass the Judge for imposing a sentence which perhaps he considered to be on the high side:whether or not it was really so was for the higher Court to decide. As pointed out earlier, law provides for seeking appropriate relief from the higher Court. It is however not permissible to adopt a course of intimidation in order to frighten the Judge. His malicious purpose in making the application is established by another tell-tale circumstance. A copy of this application, without any occasion or need for it, was forwarded to the following authorities as per the endorsement made at the foot of it:-