apeal no.37.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2015
Sau. Abha W/o Dilip Timande,
Aged about 48 years,Occ-Advocate,
R/o Tumsar, Tahsil-Tumsar,
District-Bhandara ..... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal District and
Sessions Judge,Bhandara,
District-Bhandara. ...RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri I.S.Charlewar,Advocate for appellant.
Shri N.B.Jawade,Addl.P.P. for State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- JUNE 27,2017 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri I.S.Charlewar,learned advocate for appellant and Shri N.B.Jawade, learned Addl.P.P. for State .
2. The challenge in the present appeal is the order passed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,Bhandara on 8/1/2015 in Misc.Criminal Case No.02/2015 by which the present appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code and she was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:50 ::: apeal no.37.15 2 200/- and in default of fine she was to suffer S.I. for a period of 5 days.
3. learned counsel Shri I.S.Charlewar submitted that the fine amount was already paid, but it was stigma on the appellant who is a practicing advocate therefore present appeal is filed.
4. On 8/1/2015 one Claim Petition No.83/2010, Usha and 3 others..vs..Suresh and 2 others was fixed on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge,Bhandra. On the said date, case was fixed for delivery of judgment. Appellant was one of the counsels in the said claim petition. While dictating the judgment, appellant who was representing one of the parties in the said claim petition as an advocate stood and started pointing out something to the Principal District and Sessions Judge,Bhandara. According to learned Judge this act of appellant is an insult of the Court and interruption in the judicial proceeding . Therefore,impugned order was passed.
5. The appellant was just pointing out certain things while dictating the judgment in claim petition in which she was representing one of the parties. Learned Judge has observed while framing the charge that on the said date case was not posted either ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:50 ::: apeal no.37.15 3 for argument or reply argument but it was posted for judgment and it was the duty of the Court to deliver the judgment. In my view, learned Judge has gone too technical when the learned counsel was feeling that no incorrect thing to be mentioned in the judgment. In my view, it cannot be interruption. Hence, appeal is allowed. The order dated 8/1/2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. The conviction of the appellant under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside. The fine amount deposited by the appellant be refunded.
JUDGE kitey ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:50 :::