JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—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 (I) 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 admitted 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 section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found recourse to this action necessary with a view to avoid 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. 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. 4. Shri Lokender Thakur further submits that his client may have consumed liquor, as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, but no intentional insult or obstruction was caused to the learned Judge or the court proceedings. I proceed to examine these submissions of the learned Counsel and take the last submission first for consideration. 5. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner may have taken liquor while appearing in the Court. However, it appears, the petitioner did not by any overact cause any intentional insult to the court nor caused any obstruction in its proceedings. The learned Judge, I see, felt offended like many others in such circumstances, by the very fact of the petitioner coming to the court after taking liquor. This caused annoyance to him and feeling annoyed over it, he proceeded to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code there and then. There is no evidence that the petitioner by his act or by uttering any remark insulted the court intentionally or misbehaved while appearing in his case and the court conducting the proceedings. Drunken condition, as I understand, is a stage which does not appear to have reached because it may imply a stage when a person has lost control of himself and behaves in a very shabby fashion by his utterances and actions. Here is no such condition and no such fault on the part of the petitioner. Drunken condition, as I understand, is a stage which does not appear to have reached because it may imply a stage when a person has lost control of himself and behaves in a very shabby fashion by his utterances and actions. Here is no such condition and no such fault on the part of the petitioner. It appears to be a simple case of having taken liquor quite sometime before coming to the Court. 6. Shri Lokender Thakur seeks assistance from AIR 1956 All 258 (State of Uttar Pradesh v Ratan Shukla). I am in respectful agreement with the principles laid down in this judgment. Merely appearing in a drunken state in a court is neither offering an insult nor causing interruption to the Presiding Officer of the Court. Sometimes it is seen that such like persons show more respect to the court than others who may not have taken liquor, The sine-qua-non of the offence is causing of intentional insult to the court and obstruction to its proceedings. These essential factors of this offence are totally missing in the present case. 7. Presiding Officers, by their training, experience and the nature of the work they do daily, should develop a temperament to face such like situations with calm and poise and should not become unduly sensitive in such like situations. Men of different temperament, reeling under unique notions, suffering from melancholy of litigation they are undergoing, are prone to unique behaviour, still the court has to face them while doing justice. By these observations, I do not mean that the Presiding Officer should never act, but they must act firmly and steadily if the situation becomes grave and the delinquent poses a threat to the dignity, decorum and working of the court. No hard and fast principles can be laid down to cover all situations as such like cases depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 8. Adverting to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that under section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, the maximum punishment that could be imposed by the court is a fine of Rs. 200 only and in default of the payment of the same, jail sentence could only extend to simple imprisonment for one month. Obviously, the court has gone wrong to inflict the sentence of imprisonment which is against the provisions of law. 200 only and in default of the payment of the same, jail sentence could only extend to simple imprisonment for one month. Obviously, the court has gone wrong to inflict the sentence of imprisonment which is against the provisions of law. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the revision petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment set-aside which I hereby do. I hope, by this long litigation and involvement, petitioner may have gained enough less-on by resorting to such a situation which object the learned Sessions Judge intended to achieve. In view of this, other submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner need not be discussed and decided. 10. The result is, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned judgment is set-aside and the accused is acquitted of the offence charged. Bail bond and surety bond, if any, executed by the accused at any stage of the case are hereby discharged* Revision petition allowed.