Bombay High Court hearing a contempt petition against the judicial magistrate first class observed that there was the disregard of binding precedents of superior courts by the respondent. The court thus directed the sessions judge to monitor the future performance of the magistrate for one year.

The petition was brought before the high court by an advocate who practiced in the respondent magistrate’s court. The petitioner raised multiple issues with the conduct of the respondent. The petitioner submitted that on multiple instances the respondent has wilfully and consistently ignored binding precedents of superior courts. The petitioner argued that on four different instances the respondent has either completely ignored the precedents of the superior court or has disregarded the ratio laid down in the precedents. The petitioner sought action against the respondent under article 215 of the constitution read with relevant sections of contempt of courts act, 1971.

The respondent’s counsel submitted that the respondent has already been summoned and counseled by the learned guardian judge of the district regarding the complaints in the petition and there was no need for any further action.

The Bombay high court bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice VG Bisht observed that the respondent failed to consider the authority of precedents before passing the orders in multiple cases and such approach of the magistrate was not proper since it displays non-application of judicial mind. The court leaning towards the petitioner’s contentions remarked “We prima facie intuitively feel that learned Counsel for the petitioner is right when he laments approach of respondent No.1 vis-a-vis the above-noted authorities/ pronouncements. Common sense would prompt the conclusion that respondent No.1 ought to have carefully gone through the decisions and the ratio laid down therein and then would have formed an opinion about the applicability or otherwise of the same.” However, the court refused to take any action with regard to contempt proceedings since it was not a case of unwarranted remarks by the respondent, and neither was there any case of wilful disobedience by him. The court taking in regard to the respondent’s submission stated that “It appears that respondent No.1 has been properly and suitably counseled on the administrative side of the High Court.” The court disposed of the petition after directing the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge to monitor the performance of the magistrate for one year by randomly checking his judgments and orders and report to the court in case any action was necessary

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Pranay Lakhanpal