Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 869 (RAJ)

Ravi Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-14

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this revision, the petitioner Ravi Kumar has approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 23.06.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No.74/2000, holding the petitioner liable for committing contempt of Court and while proceeding under Section 345 Cr.P.C., imposed upon him a fine of Rs.10/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 days simple imprisonment. 2. Facts in brief are that during proceedings of a Case No.262/1997, the trial court being the ACJM, Srikaranpur took note of the fact that the petitioner herein, asked the counsel Krishan Kumar to leave the Court purportedly because lawyers had called a strike. The trial court, thereupon initiated suo-motu proceedings under Section 345 Cr.P.C. and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, filed a reply to the show cause notice. The reply was supported by an affidavit of the Advocate Krishan Kumar who swore in the affidavit that the petitioner simply told him that Shri Gopi Ram was calling him. He categorically stated in the affidavit that the petitioner did not ask him to leave the court. The trial court, ignored the above affidavit and by the impugned order dated 23.06.2000, proceeded to convict and sentence the petitioner as above in proceedings under Section 345 Cr.P.C. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by Shri M.K. Garg, learned counsel representing the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order as well as the documents filed on record. 4. Per se, the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned order appeared to be contrary to record and perverse. The petitioner was held liable for obstructing the proceedings of the court on the pretext that he, asked the lawyer Krishan Kumar standing on the dais to go out of the court. The lawyer Krishan Kumar, submitted an affidavit in support of the petitioner's reply that he was not asked by the petitioner to leave the court. 5. In this background, there was no material before the trial court so as to justify the conviction of the petitioner for the alleged obstruction caused in the proceedings of the court. The impugned order is per se absurd, illegal and perverse and cannot be sustained. 6. The revision thus deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 5. In this background, there was no material before the trial court so as to justify the conviction of the petitioner for the alleged obstruction caused in the proceedings of the court. The impugned order is per se absurd, illegal and perverse and cannot be sustained. 6. The revision thus deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 23.06.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur is declared to be illegal and is hereby quashed and set aside.