KRISHNA MOHAN KULSHRESTHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Krishna Mohan Kulshrestha is a practising lawyer. He filed a complain under Sec. 500, I.P.C. During the course of the hearing of this complaint case a female witness, Km. Chand by name was put in the witness box. The counsel for the defence wanted to bring out from this lady witness the fact that she had been brought to the court by the complainant himself and not by Jwala Prasad. In this connection the defence counsel while cross examining the lady witness put a question to her and requested the court to call Jwala Prasad from outside the court. The learned Magistrate asked the defence counsel to make an application for calling Jwala Prasad and directed that further cross examination of the witness shall take place after lunch. The learned Magistrate thereafter intended to rise for lunch. At this point of time the lawyer complainant said that great injustice was being done. The learned Magistrate asked the applicant not to use such words. Thereupon the applicant said and repeated it, in a louder and stronger tone that great injustice is being done and that the courts are meant for doing justice, injustice should not be committed.

(2.) At this the learned Magistrate did not rise for lunch and drew up proceedings under Sec. 228 I.P.C. He found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 100.00.

(3.) The learned Session Judge, Mathura dismissed the appeal, hence this revision. In this revision the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has urged that no insult was offered or intended and as such no offence under Sec. 228, I.P.C. was committed. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Revashanker A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 102 the question whether there is an intention to offer insult to the Magistrate trying the case or not, must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.