Criminal contempt for assaulting a judicial officer in court was upheld despite apology and undertaking

Violent and abusive conduct by an advocate toward a Magistrate in open court was treated as gross criminal contempt because it obstructed the administration of justice and struck at the authority of the court. The reference under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was held valid, and the High Court's reliance on the judicial officer's report was upheld in the absence of cogent contrary evidence. The apology was found neither genuine nor bona fide, and an undertaking could not erase the offence or justify interference with the sentence. The conviction and punishment for criminal contempt were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether assaulting and abusing a judicial officer in open court constituted criminal contempt and whether apology or undertaking could erase the offence or warrant leniency in sentence.

Analysis: The conduct of an advocate in slapping a Magistrate inside court, after abusing the court and obstructing the administration of justice, was held to amount to gross criminal contempt. The reference and cognizance under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were found valid, and the High Court's acceptance of the judicial officer's report was upheld in the absence of cogent evidence to the contrary. The apology was found to be neither genuine nor bona fide, and the tender of an undertaking could not obliterate the offence or justify interference with the sentence, since such conduct strikes at the majesty and authority of the justice delivery system.

Conclusion: The conviction for criminal contempt and the sentence imposed were upheld; the appeal was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: Contemptuous violence against a judicial officer in open court was treated as an affront to the authority of and not as a matter capable of being neutralised by apology, and the punishment was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An intentional assault or abusive interference with a judicial officer in court constitutes criminal contempt, and a non-genuine apology or undertaking does not bar conviction or prevent punishment where the conduct undermines the administration of justice.

---