P C JOSE Vs. NANDAKAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A delicate question is involved in this case. Can a litigant claim that he has equal right with advocates to sit on the front seats in a court room when advocates are to stand due to want of seating facilities?

(2.) Facts, having a queerish tinge, are the following : Petitioner was a party in a civil suit in the court of a Munsiff. Petitioner was conducting his case without the aid of a counsel. On 16-7-1992 petitioner occupied one of the seats on the front row of the court hall. Some advocates including seniors in the Bar were standing as seats were not available for them to sit. Learned Munsif then asked the petitioner to move out of the seat for accommodating the seniors in the Bar. But petitioner declined to obey and persisted in claiming right to sit at the same place. He also told the Munsiff that without a written order he was not prepared to obey the direction of the court. Learned Munsiff treated the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner as amounting to insult or interruption intentionally caused to ajudicial functionary during judicial proceedings. Thereupon he took cognizance of the offence specified in S. 228 of the Penal Code and resorted to the steps envisaged in S. 345 of the Criminal P.C. (for short 'the Code'). He asked the petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished. As there was no satisfactory explanation, learned Munsiff sentenced the petitioner to a fine of Rs. 150/-.

(3.) Petitioner challenges the aforesaid proceedings invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under S. 482 of the Code. Here also petitioner argued his own case without the aid of a counsel.