K.A. MOHAMMED ALIversusC.N. PRASANNAN

                        K.A. MOHAMMED ALI                                    A
                                    v
                           C.N. PRASANNAN

                           OCTOBER 4, 1994

                 (MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND                                    B
                  K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.)

      r:ontempt of Courts Act, 1971 :

       Section !~Advocate raising the pitch of his voice and annoying C
Magistrate-Also using derogatory language against the Magistrate-After-
wards circulating posters and staging demonstration-On report High Court
taking action-Imposing fine-Ordering payment ofcertain sums to State
Legal Aid Board-On appeal punishment limited to admonitiolt-Payment
of fine set aside-Order regarding payment to State Legal Aid Board main- D
tained.

      The Appellant, an Advocate was convicted by tbe High Court for
committing Contempt of tbe Court of a Magistrate. The charges against
him were raising tbe pitch of his voice to tbe annoyance of tbe Magistrate
and using derogatory language against the Magistrate; he also got pub-       E
lished and circulated certain posters and staged a demonstration. He was
sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 2000. The appellant was also ordered to pay
sums of Rs. 5000 and Rs. 10,000 to tbe State Legal Aid Board. Hence these
appeals.

      Disposing of the appeals, Ibis Court                                   F

      HELD : 1. When tbe appellant was warned of his unruly behaviour,
he should have stopped and gone in tune witb tbe Magistrate and not
retained a defiant and aggressive posture. [192-F)

      2. Though the appellant is apologetic for his mis-behaviour, his       G
apology at Ibis belated juncture is not accepted. The appellant is ad-.
monished for his conduct under plenary powers of Ibis Court under tbe
Constitution. The payment of line is set aside. However, tbe sums of Rs.
5000 and Rs. 10,000 which have been ordered to be paid by tbe appellant
to the Kerala Legal Aid Board are meant for a good cause and tbose orders    H
                                   191 .
    192                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A are maintained. [192·G·H, 193-A·B]
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No ..
    678 of 1991 etc.

          From the Judgment and order dated 14.3.91 of the Kerala High
B Court in C.C.C. No. 27 of 1989.
          E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.

         G. Vishwanathan Iyer, S. Balakrishnan, M.K.D. Namboodri and
    R.Sasiprabhu for the Respondent.
c         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          These are two appeals by a learned advocate who stands convicted
    under section 12 of the Contempt of Court" Act for having committed the
    contempt of the court of a learned Magistrate before whom he was
D   conducting a trial for an accused person. Amongst others, one of the
    charges against the appellant was that he had at a certain juncture raised
    the pitch of his voice unusually high to the annoyance of the Learned
    Magistrate, and besides, had used derogatory language against him. After
    the incident, the appellant got published and circulated certain posters and
E   caused a demonstration staged which got reported to the High Court
    whereupon action was taken against the appellant.

          We have gone through both the judgments of the High Court and
    have heard learned counsel. We have no reason to disbelieve the learned
    Magistrate on the actual happenings, even though effort has been made by
F   Mr. Anam, learned counsel for the appellant to question the same. We are
    of the view that when the appellant was warned of his unruly behaviour,
    he should have stopped and gone in tune with the learned Magistrate and
    not retained a defiant and aggressive posture. It shold be borne in mind by
    one and all that lawyers were created for the courts, not courts for the
G   lawyers. The happy combination, whenever an aberration occurs, should in
    immediacy be restored and put to an even keel. Mr. Anam with all his
    sincerity has expressed before us that the appellant is apologitic for his
    misbehaviour. We regretfully will not be able to accept his apology at this
    belated juncture, but would rather admonish the appellant for his conduct
    under our plenary powers under the Constitution, which we do hereby.
H   Having done so, we would set aside the payment of fine. The appellant
                K. A MOHD. ALI v. C.N. PRASANNAN                     193

need not pay pay the imposed fine Rs. 2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 678       A
of 1991. However, the sums of Rs.5000 and Rs. 10,000 which have been
ordered to be paid by the appellant to the Kerala Legal Aid Board under
orders under challenge in the respeciive two appeals are meant for a good
cause and those orders we do not upset. This course should set everything
at rest. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
                                                                            B
G.N.                                                Appeals disposed of.