New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has held a lawyer guilty of criminal contempt for appearing before a magisterial court in a traffic challan case in a drunken state and using foul and abusive language.
A bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, while holding the lawyer guilty of criminal contempt, said that a perusal of the language used by the contemnor qua the judicial officer would leave no iota of doubt that it would fall in the definition of criminal contempt as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Appearing before a court in a drunken state is unpardonable: High Court
“The language used by the contemnor in fact has scandalised the court and such conduct also leads to interference in the administration of justice. The words spoken are foul and abusive. Moreover, considering the fact that the judicial officer presiding the court was a lady judicial officer and the manner in which the contemnor, i.e., respondent herein, has addressed the said judicial officer is completely unacceptable. Appearing before a court in a drunken state is also unpardonable. The same is contempt on the face of the court. Thus, this court has no doubt in holding that the respondent is guilty of criminal contempt,” the High Court said.
Contemnor lawyer shouted in court and used abusive and filthy language
The Metropolitan Magistrate recorded in the order that the accused-owner of the vehicle had appeared before the court along with counsel, who is now the contemnor before the High Court, and they were apprised that the matter is adjourned and a date had been given in the matter, however, immediately thereafter, the counsel/contemnor started shouting in the court and used abusive and filthy language.
Since contemnor has already served a sentence of over five months, further sentence is not imposed: High Court
The High Court said that it was inclined to punish the contemnor for criminal contempt, however, on these very allegations and happenings, since the contemnor has already served a sentence of over five months, further sentence is not imposed on the contemnor.
“The period already undergone by the respondent herein is held as the punishment for the present criminal contempt,” the High Court said.
