Skip to content


S. Narayana Murthy Vs. State of Mysore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1974CriLJ211; (1973)2MysLJ266
AppellantS. Narayana Murthy
RespondentState of Mysore
Excerpt:
.....as the proceedings under order 21 rule 97 is akin to a suit. the order of the executing court posting the case for adjudication of the claim of the respondent/objector on i.a.no.6 held, justified. - the court has to be satisfied that the accused intentionally offered interruption to the court. in cases coming under this section, the court is both the prosecutor and judge and so the power should be used only in exceptional cases......accused told the daffedar who called him that he was typing the last sentence and that he would come after typing the same. after typing the last sentence, the accused went to the court hall. there was some delay in this process. this is not enough to convict the accused under section 228, i.p.c. the court has to be satisfied that the accused intentionally offered interruption to the court. in cases coming under this section, the court is both the prosecutor and judge and so the power should be used only in exceptional cases. the courts taking action under this section ought not to give room for the impression that they are unduly sensitive about their dignity. in this case there are no materials on which the munsiff could have come to the conclusion that the accused intended to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

C. Honniah, J.

1. I am wholly unable to understand how on the facts stated by the Munsiff, any offence was committed under Section 228, I.P.C. The Munsiff says that the proceedings in the Court were interrupted by the accused who was working as a Stenographer under him by not coming to the Court Hall though sent for. It is admitted that at the time the Munsiff sent for the accused, the accused was typing issues in an original suit as the same had been dictated to him by the Munsiff earlier. The accused told the Daffedar who called him that he was typing the last sentence and that he would come after typing the same. After typing the last sentence, the accused went to the Court hall. There was some delay in this process. This is not enough to convict the accused under Section 228, I.P.C. The Court has to be satisfied that the accused intentionally offered interruption to the Court. In cases coming under this section, the Court is both the Prosecutor and Judge and so the power should be used only in exceptional cases. The Courts taking action under this Section ought not to give room for the impression that they are unduly sensitive about their dignity. In this case there are no materials on which the Munsiff could have come to the conclusion that the accused intended to insult him or to interrupt his proceedings. Proceedings of this character on trivial matters will have a tendency to interfere with the proper administration of justice as they would put the party in fear of possible summary punishment for acts which may be innocently committed. I set aside the conviction and direct the fine to be refunded.


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