Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment dated 25 March 2022 of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court convicting appellant under Section 2(c)(iii) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and sentencing him two weeks of simple imprisonment.
Brief Facts:
Insolvency proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909. On 12 March 2021, a Single Judge of the Madras High Court issued a non-bailable warrant seeking the presence of the appellant on 26 March 2021. When a team of the police tried to execute the warrant, the appellant and fifty other advocates gheraoed the police and prevented them from executing the order. The Deputy Commissioner of Police brought the incident to the notice of the Registrar General of the Madras High Court. On perusing the video clippings of the incident, the Single Judge of the Madras High Court initiated contempt proceedings against the appellant under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1926. On 1 September 2021, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on perusing the records found that a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant and issued notice.
HC’s Decision:
By the impugned judgment dated 25 March 2022, the appellant was held guilty of contempt and was sentenced to undergo two weeks of simple imprisonment and was directed to pay a fine of Rs 2000. The appellant was also barred from practising as an Advocate in the Madras High Court for one year. The Court observed that on the video clipping shows that the police did not use physical force against the appellant and that it was the battery of lawyers who surrounded the police officials and abused them.
SC’s Observations and Held:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that the behaviour and conduct of the appellant, who is a member of the Bar has been thoroughly contemptuous. There was a clear attempt to obstruct the process of justice when the non-bailable warrant was sought to be served on him by the competent police officials, which has been recorded in the video footage. The appellant is complicit in the obstruction of justice.
SC observed that Five adjournments were sought by the appellant before the Madras High Court, delaying the conclusion of the proceedings only to later file sub-applications imputing allegations against two Judges of the Madras High Court. The appellant later also took back the sub-applications from the registry and did not re-present them. The appellant has no respect for the administration of justice. The finding of contempt, as well as the sentence cannot be regarded as disproportionate. Similarly, the debarment from practicing for a period of one year is in accordance with the judgment of this Court in R.K. Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court.
Case Title: P R Adikesavan v. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras and Another
Bench: J. Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and J. Bela M Trivedi
Citation: Criminal Appeal No 847 of 2022
Decided on: 23rd May, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
