Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Chhaganlal Ishwardas Shah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 212 of 1933
Judge
Reported in(1933)35BOMLR1025
AppellantEmperor
RespondentChhaganlal Ishwardas Shah
Excerpt:
.....procedure code (act v of 1898), section 480-insult to court-intention-contempt of court-assessor-dress of assessor.;in order to bring a case within section 228 of the indian penal code, 1860, and section 480 of the criminal procedure code, 1898, it must be shown that the accused intentionally offered an insult to the court.;where an assessor appears in court dressed in a paheran (loose shirt), a cap, and a scarf, he does not commit an offence, in the absence of any rule as to the dress of assessors, and in the absence of any suggestion that the dress offends against any rule of public decency or is intended to be insulting to the court. - - well, that is rather a matter of taste. my own opinion is that it looks better without a coat, than with one. there are no rules as to the dress..........nadiad sessions court and he appeared in a dress consisting of a paheran, a cap, and a scarf. the learned sessions judge thought that he was improperly dressed and fined him rs. 3.2. in the reasons which the learned sessions judge gives for his order he says that an assessor ought to wear a coat, and that anybody not wearing a coat is improperly dressed. well, that is rather a matter of taste. we have been shown what we are told is a paheran. my own opinion is that it looks better without a coat, than with one. but what we have to consider is not a question of taste, but whether the learned sessions judge had any jurisdiction to fine the assessor. there are no rules as to the dress to be worn by assessors, and this particular assessor stated to the court that the dress he was wearing.....
Judgment:

John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.

1. In this case the petitioner was summoned to serve as an assessor in a sessions case in the Nadiad Sessions Court and he appeared in a dress consisting of a paheran, a cap, and a scarf. The learned Sessions Judge thought that he was improperly dressed and fined him Rs. 3.

2. In the reasons which the learned Sessions Judge gives for his order he says that an assessor ought to wear a coat, and that anybody not wearing a coat is improperly dressed. Well, that is rather a matter of taste. We have been shown what we are told is a paheran. My own opinion is that it looks better without a coat, than with one. But what we have to consider is not a question of taste, but whether the learned Sessions Judge had any jurisdiction to fine the assessor. There are no rules as to the dress to be worn by assessors, and this particular assessor stated to the Court that the dress he was wearing Was his best dress and the one in which he had appeared seven or eight times before as an assessor, and that it was the dress which he wore on ceremonial occasions. There is no evidence in answer to that, and no reason for thinking the statement untrue.

3. The Government Pleader suggests that the order of the learned Sessions Judge may be justified under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 480 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But in order to bring the Case within those sections it must be shown that the assessor intentionally offered an insult to the Court. If we accept his statement that he appeared in his best dress, it seems to me impossible to say that he intended to insult the Court by so doing. Even if his dress is to be regarded as somewhat neglige, I should think it more likely that his intention was to insure his own comfort, than to insult the Court. In my opinion, therefore, there being no rule as to the dress of assessors, and there being no suggestion that this dress offends against any rule of public decency, or was intended to be insulting to the Court, the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to fine the assessor. The order made by the learned Sessions Judge is, therefore, set aside, and the fine refunded.

N.J. Wadia, J.

4. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //