Appearing Before Court In Drunken State Unpardonable, Amounts To Contempt: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that appearing before a court in drunken state is “unpardonable” and amounts to contempt of court.A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma held a lawyer, who appeared before a trial court drunk in a traffic challan-case, guilty of criminal contempt. “Appearing before a Court in a drunken state is...
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that appearing before a court in drunken state is “unpardonable” and amounts to contempt of court.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma held a lawyer, who appeared before a trial court drunk in a traffic challan-case, guilty of criminal contempt.
“Appearing before a Court in a drunken state is also unpardonable. The same is contempt on the face of the Court. Thus, this Court has no doubt in holding that the Respondent is guilty of criminal contempt,” the court said.
It disposed of a suo motu criminal contempt plea initiated in 2015 against the lawyer. The MM recorded in the order that the counsel used filthy and abusive language in court. The woman judge asked him to leave the court after he was smelling to be in a drunken state.
On the complaint of the judge, the lawyer was convicted in 2019 for the offences under Sections 186, 189, 228, 509 and 353 of IPC. He was however acquitted under Sections 188 and 354A. He was cumulatively sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years.
In appeal, the sentence was suspended. The lawyer had undergone a sentence of 5 months and 22 days in total.
Holding the lawyer guilty of criminal contempt, the bench said that the language used by him against the woman Judicial Officer would fall in the definition of criminal contempt as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act.
“The language used by the Contemnor in fact has scandalised the Court and such conduct also leads to interference in the administration of justice. The words spoken are foul and abusive. Moreover, considering the fact that the Judicial Officer presiding the Court was a lady Judicial Officer and the manner in which the Contemnor, i.e., Respondent herein, has addressed the said Judicial Officer is completely unacceptable,” the court said.
However, since the lawyer had already served a sentence of over 5 months, the court did not impose further sentence.
“The period already undergone by the respondent herein is held as the punishment for the present criminal contempt,” the court said.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SANJAY RATHOD (ADVOCATE)