RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ramesh Chand approaches this Court through this revision petition under sections 397/401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He feels aggrieved by the order of learned Sessions Judge, Una, dated December 23, 1985 convicting him under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that a case under section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was pending between Ramesh Chand and Jagdish Kumari, his wife. Both were present in person and on the day of occurrence, the learned Sessions Judge noticed that the petitioner was emitting awful and offending smell of liquor which caused annoyance to the Court. The learned Sessions Judge further records that the petitioner admitting having come to the court after consuming liquor; so, having come to the court in drunken condition, offered insult intentionally to the court besides causing interruption in the proceedings of the court with the result that the court did not think it proper to record his statement. The Court found these Circumstances sufficient to proceed against the petitioner for an offence punishable under sec. 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found recourse to this action necessary with a view to avoiding such like happenings and intentional insult to the court. Notice was given to the petitioner and he admitted having come to the court in a drunken condition. His admission was found enough and the court proceeded to convict and punish him under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. In the penultimate paragraph of the order, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the order of sentence of imprisonment was being passed so that during the period of imprisonment the petitioner did not have access to liquor and this may help him to resist temptation to liquor and this object could not be achieved by imposition of fine.

(3.) Shri Lokender Thakur, who appears for the petitioner, contends that his client, a Matriculate with technical know-how as Assistant Line Man in Punjab State Electricity Board at Nangal, is severely affected by this order. He is likely to lose his employment with the result that he will be rendered unemployed leading to immense sufferings to his family members. He further contends that the learned Sessions Judge proceeded immediately to punish his client without even affording any opportunity to engage a Lawyer to defend him. It is also contended that the learned Sessions Judge proceeded under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to punish the petitioner for having committed this offence in the presence of the court, so, in these circumstances, the only punishment awardable was fine not exceeding Rs. 200/- and in default of the payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month.