Sau. Abha W/O Dilip Timande vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3659 Bom

 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.

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

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