Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 935 (MAD)

Natarajan v. State by Inspector of Police

2003-06-30

P.SATHASIVAM

body2003
Judgment :- The Revision is directed against the order of the Special Court under Essential Commodities Act-cum-N.D.P.S.Act., Thanjavur dated 17-6-2003, made inM.C.1 of 2003 wherein the learned Judge convicted the petitioner under Section 228 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one month. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for respondent. 3. It is seen that petitioner is an accused in M.C.No. 1 of 2003 on the file of Special Court under Essential Commodities Act-cum-N.D.P.S.Act, Thanjavur. At the time of examination, the accused/petitioner herein did not behave properly and replied to the Presiding Officer saying that "how many times I have to tell". After holding that the said action of the accused amounts to contempt of court, and it interrupted the court proceedings, after framing a charge under Section 228 I.P.C. he convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence,the petitioner has preferred the present Revision. 4. The petitioner was charged under Section 228 IPC which reads as under:- "228. Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding Whoever, intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sittings in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." It is relevant to refer Sections 345 and 348 Cr.P.C.: "345. Procedure in certain cases of contempt.- (1) When any such offence as is described in Section 175, Section 178, Section 179, Section 180 or Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may, at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day, take cognizance of the offence and, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished under this section, sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid. (2) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender, as well as the finding and sentence. (3) If the offence is under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and the nature of the interruption or insult. Section 348. Discharge of offender on submission of apology.- When any Court has under Section 345 adjudged an offender to punishment, or has under Section 346 forward him to a Magistrate for trial, for refusing or omitting to do anything which he was lawfully required to do or for any intentional insult or interruption, the Court may, in its discretion, discharge the offender or remit the punishment on his submission to the order or requisition of such Court, or on apology being made to its satisfaction." I have already referred to the reply of the petitioner to the charge framed under Section 228 I.P.C. He made an apology for his statement and the same was not accepted by the learned Magistrate. As per Section 348, Cr.P.C., if the Court adjudged him as an offender to punishment following the procedure provided under Section 345 has to forward him to a Magistrate for trial for refusing or omitting to do anything which he was lawfully required to do or for any intentional insult or interruption, the Court may in its discretion discharge the offender on apology being made to its satisfaction. Inasmuch as the petitioner had tendered apology, by realising his mistake in causing interruption or insulting the Court, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate ought to have applied the provisions of Section 348 Cr.P.C. and discharged him by accepting his apology. However, if the learned Magistrate was not satisfied with his apology, he ought to have forwarded him to a competent Magistrate for trial under Section 346. Instead of resorting to such recourse, he straight away sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. However, if the learned Magistrate was not satisfied with his apology, he ought to have forwarded him to a competent Magistrate for trial under Section 346. Instead of resorting to such recourse, he straight away sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. I have referred to Section 345 Cr.P.C. which enables the Court to impose a fine on the offender not exceeding 200 rupees and in default of payment of fine to simple imprisonment to a term which may extend to one month unless such fine be sooner paid. Even for a charge under Section 228 IPC, as per Section 345 Cr.P.C., the Court is empowered to impose fine not exceeding Rs.200/-. In our case, the Special Court has sentenced him to imprisonment for one month which he is not authorised. Though the learned Judge has followed the procedure, particularly sub-clause (1) and (2) in Section 345 Cr.P.C., he committed an error im sentencing the petitioner imprisonment for one month. As observed earlier, if the Court was not inclined to accept his apology, it is the duty of the Court to forward the accused under Section 346 Cr.P.C. to a competent Magistrate for trial. I am satisfied that the conviction and sentence is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. Inasmuch as the petitioner after realising his mistake tendered apology for his answer/statement, I feel that the same is sufficient and by accepting the same, I acquit him of the offence with which he was charged. 5. Under these circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the Special Court dated 17-6-2003 in M.C.No. 1 of 2003 are set aside. Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No. 5254 of 2003 is closed as unnecessary.