An Advocate with 30 years’ experience uttered filthy cuss words instinctively on seeing a rashly driven car, forgetting the fact that he was still in the middle of his argument in a virtual Court. He has since been fined by the Court.
On Monday, G Samwell Rajendran was disputing a bail case standing near a road. He saw a rashly driven car whizzing past, he yelled, using a filthy phrase in Tamil, as to how reckless the driver was. He uttered the words in virtual Court while the judge & other court employees were listening & watching.
Irked by the “filthy, offensive & intimidatory” words, Tuticorin Principal District & Sessions Judge N Logeswaran initiated summary contempt proceedings against the lawyer & issued him a show-cause notice.
On Tuesday, not satisfied with the explanation offered by the Advocate, the Court imposed a fine of Rs 200 on him for causing “intentional interruption to judicial proceedings.” The fine was to be paid on Wednesday (June 10).
The Judge said that “This court is of the view that even an uneducated village man will not utter the filthy language in a public place….This court finds that the accused has insulted the principal district judge sitting in the judicial proceedings during working hours, & committed an offence under Section 228 (Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding) of the IPC”.
Read also : Supreme Court mulls going paperless to save Environment and enhance Efficiency
The order was communicated to G Samwell Rajendran through an email & to his WhatsApp number. It will be uploaded on the official website of the District Court.
The Judge, who himself lodged the complaint, mentioned that the prosecutor, a woman stenographer, a protocol officer & a couple of other Court officials, who were present in the virtual Court & witnessed the ugly incident, had given a ‘written report’ to the Judge about the incident.
The Lawyer wrote to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry explaining the incident in a bid to pre-empt any penal action. However, it, didn’t help, as the Court concluded that the remarks were an “intentional insult in the course of judicial proceedings.”
Read also : Bombay HC directs mother to Allow father to meet kids through video call during lockdown.
Source Link
