Contemnor has made certain allegations against the learned sitting Judges of the High Court and learned Judges of the District Court . The learned Single Judge held \u00a0that a bare perusal of the averments made \u00a0show that they are scandalous and aimed at lowering the dignity and majesty of this Court. They have been made malafidely to interfere with administration of justice and amounting to contempt, intrinsically contemptuous in nature and fall within the definition of \u00a0\u201cCriminal Contempt\u201d of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 under Section 2(c)(i).. On appeal\u00a0 the division bench held that the contemnor\/respondent has made contumacious allegations in the appeal making scandalous, unwarranted and baseless imputations against the learned Judges of this Court as well as District Courts who have been discharging their judicial function. Moreover, being an Officer of this Court making such averments in the judicial pleading are more serious in nature. It is incumbent upon the Courts of justice to check such actions with a firm hand which otherwise will have pernicious consequences. \u00a0Court also observed that having considered the material placed on record, submissions of contemnor,\u00a0 Court\u00a0 held that\u00a0 the \u00a0contemnor has no repentance for his conduct and actions. Accordingly directed for undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with fine of Rs.2,000\/ . \u00a0(Cont .Cas ( CRL )4 \/2022 dt 9 th January , 2024 )<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Contempt of Courts Act , 1971 . <\/p>\n
S. 2( c )(i): Contempt of Court- Criminal contempt \u2013 For making Scandalous , unwarranted and baseless imputations against several sitting Judges of the High Court and district Courts \u2013 Court has sentenced a lawyer to six months imprisonment after holding him guilty of criminal contempt . [ S. 5 14, , 15] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allied-laws"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-9Yf","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38331","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38331"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38331\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38332,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38331\/revisions\/38332"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}