- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
K.A Mohammed Ali v. C.N Prasannan .
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion concerns two appeals filed by an advocate who was convicted under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act for contempt committed in the court of a learned Magistrate while the advocate was conducting a trial for an accused person. One of the charges was that, at a particular stage, the advocate raised his voice unusually high, causing annoyance to the Magistrate, and also used derogatory language against him.
After the incident, the advocate arranged for posters to be published and circulated and caused a demonstration to be staged, which was reported to the High Court. Thereupon, action was taken against him. The appellate court reviewed both judgments of the High Court and heard learned counsel in the present appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant’s contempt conviction (based on alleged unruly conduct and derogatory language before the Magistrate) warranted interference in appeal.
- Whether the appellant’s belated apology should be accepted, and what modification, if any, should be made to the penalties imposed (fine and payments directed to the Kerala Legal Aid Board).
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court stated that it had examined both High Court judgments and heard counsel. It found no reason to disbelieve the learned Magistrate regarding the actual happenings, notwithstanding an attempt by the appellant’s counsel (Mr Anam) to question the Magistrate’s account.
The court emphasized that, once the appellant was warned about unruly behaviour, he ought to have desisted and aligned his conduct with the decorum expected before the Magistrate, rather than maintaining a defiant and aggressive posture. The court underscored the institutional relationship between the Bar and the Bench, stating that lawyers exist for courts (and not vice versa), and that any aberration in that relationship should be promptly corrected to restore equilibrium.
Although counsel conveyed that the appellant was apologetic, the court declined to accept the apology because it was tendered at a belated stage. Instead, the court chose to admonish the appellant for his conduct by invoking its plenary powers under the Constitution. Having admonished him, the court modified the monetary consequences: it set aside the payment of the fine of Rs 2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 1991. However, it left undisturbed the orders directing payment of Rs 5000 and Rs 10,000 to the Kerala Legal Aid Board, noting that these amounts were intended for a good cause. The court indicated that this course would “set everything at rest.”
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF: The appeals were disposed of by admonishing the appellant; setting aside the fine of Rs 2000 (in Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 1991); and maintaining the orders directing payment of Rs 5000 and Rs 10,000 to the Kerala Legal Aid Board in the respective appeals.
The direct effect is that the appellant is relieved from paying the imposed fine of Rs 2000, but remains bound to pay the two amounts directed to the Kerala Legal Aid Board. The court did not indicate any broader precedential implications beyond resolving the matter between the parties and bringing the controversy to rest.
Order
1. 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 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, he had used derogatory language against him. After the incident, the appellant got certain posters published and circulated and caused a demonstration staged which got reported to the High Court whereupon action was taken against the appellant.
2. 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 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 should be borne in mind by one and all that lawyers were created for the courts, not courts for the 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 apologetic 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. Having done so, we would set aside the payment of fine. The appellant need not pay the imposed fine of Rs 2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 678 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 respective 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.
Alert