Summary
The Court upheld the advocate’s criminal-contempt conviction based on a sustained pattern of threats and unfounded allegations that interfered with the administration of justice. It reduced the three-month prison sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, considering his age and medical condition.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s criminal-contempt conviction and sentence for the advocate’s conduct warranted interference.
- Whether the apology was sufficient to purge the contempt.
Provisions considered
- Criminal contempt and sentence, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971The Court affirmed the conviction for conduct found to interfere with the administration of justice and lower the dignity of the courts. It modified the prison term because of the appellant’s age and stated medical ailments. (¶¶ 2, 12, 13, 17, 21, 23)
Held
- The High Court’s finding of criminal contempt warranted no interference in light of the appellant’s repeated threats, unfounded allegations against judges and conduct undermining the administration of justice. (¶¶ 11, 12, 17, 19, 21, 23)
- An apology must show sincere remorse and contrition; a belated apology lacking sincerity may be rejected and is not a device to purge contempt. (¶¶ 17, 22)
- Considering the appellant’s age and stated medical ailments, the three-month prison sentence was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. (¶ 23)
Result
The criminal appeal was dismissed, with the sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. Three connected matters were de-tagged for separate listing; no order as to costs.