A contemnor can be sentenced to a maximum of six months imprisonment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (File photo)A HOSHIARPUR resident has been held guilty for contempt of court by the Punjab and Haryana High Court after he shouted inside a courtroom, using derogatory language and threatened the presiding officer during the hearing of a civil suit.
A contemnor can be sentenced to a maximum of six months imprisonment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
“We have no hesitation to hold that the contemner, Kuldeep Raj Kaila, is guilty of contempt of court, as he has scandalised the authority of the court and has further interfered in the judicial proceedings and obstructed the administration of justice,” read the verdict pronounced by the division bench of Justices Jaswant Singh and Arun Kumar Tyagi.
The court has directed Kaila to remain present in court on August 23 for a hearing on the quantum of sentence and directed the district and sessions judge of his home district to ensure his presence on the date. Kalia was facing these contempt proceedings since August 2018 on the basis of a reference made to the high court by Civil Judge (junior division) Dasuya Renu Goyal.
Observing that the allegations against Kaila are not merely in the nature of insult to a public servant, the court ruled that his conduct had scandalised the court itself and “was tending to demoralise” the judicial officer, adding that his action made it difficult for her to perform her duties fearlessly. The court further said it was a pre-intended act because Kaila has previously also acted in “an indignant and hostile manner, having some personal prejudice against the presiding officer”.
Last year, Kalia started shouting, as per judicial officer Goyal’s reference note, inside the courtroom during the hearing of a civil suit after he came to know that he was proceeded ex-parte and his application for setting aside the ex-parte order was also disposed off due to his non-appearance. The reference stated that he also used derogatory language and extended threats to the judicial officer. The ruckus inside the courtroom was watched by all present and it “lowered the authority of the court”, the reference said.
Kaila raised objection to the maintainability of the case before high court and refused to engage or be represented by a counsel. In his reply, he contended that the contempt petition is not maintainable as there was no sanction for it by the state advocate general, which is a requirement under the 1971 Act. He argued that his alleged action could constitute an offence under Section 228 IPC (intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding) and the lower court is competent to initiate action against him, adding the ‘proviso’ of Section 10 of the 1971 Act provides that no high court shall take cognisance of contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of court insubordinate to it.
The division bench in the verdict said no argument has been raised to claim that the alleged incident in the courtroom last year had not taken place, adding that Kaila has not even opted to file reply and further has not even shown any remorse for his act and conduct against the judicial officer.
