Judgment 1. This matter is about the ringing of a mobile telephone during the courts proceeding. Madhu Kumar @ Madhu Kumar Sinha, who has filed the present appeal, is an Assistant in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali at Hazipur. Unfortunately, while he was present in the court to instruct a State Counsel in a case his phone was on a ring. The court was angered that it happened. The court called him, but this appellant bolted out of the court room. This perhaps angered the court more, and rightly. While the State Counsel came to aid help in trying to explain away the situation, yet the ringing of the mobile phone could not be explained. Ultimately, a fine of Rs. 1000/- and three days simple imprisonment was ordered. The mobile phone has also been confiscated. The learned judge was kind enough to provide him an opportunity to prefer and appeal, if the order could be modulated. Thus, this appeal before the court. 2. The court did put a question to learned counsel for the appellant as to what exactly is incorrect with the order so that the appellate court should modify it. Learned counsel was fair enough to concede that there is no illegality in the order. He candidly submitted that perhaps the punishment of sending the appellant behind the bar for three days may be too harsh. This, perhaps, may be no ground to interfere with the order. 3. The other coincidental part is that while this case was being argued upon, a mobile phone was heard ringing merrily in this very court. But, the person who is possessed of the mobile phone, a senior member of the Bar, did not run out of the court. At the request of the court he graciously gave it to the Court Master who was instructed to receive it and return it at the end of the court session. 4. Some courts may take the matter seriously and yet other courts in humour. But the fact of the matter is that making a mobile phone ring in a court room does disturb the proceeding and the sanctity of the court. Mobile Phones should not ring within a court room and it would be best that it is not carried into it or ensured that it is switched off. 5. But the fact of the matter is that making a mobile phone ring in a court room does disturb the proceeding and the sanctity of the court. Mobile Phones should not ring within a court room and it would be best that it is not carried into it or ensured that it is switched off. 5. Learned counsel was unable to tell the court on what song was playing on the mobile phone and the court cannot hear it because by this time battery of the mobile phone must have discharged. The court did ask one more question from learned counsel of the appellant as to how a clerk in the State department can afford a mobile phone. The response was to this question, was this question is best not asked. 6. All things considered. The court cannot certify that the learned judge was incorrect. No part of the order can be certified as being illegal. Thus, the fine remains. This court cannot, set aside the sentence but recommends for waiver and His Lordship would be so kind to accept the recommendation of the court for waiver of the sentence of imprisonment. 7. The matter may be listed before the Hon ble court on Monday (29.9.2003). 8. Consigned.