Contempt of court sentence reduced after unconditional apology and remorse, though the lawyer's conduct was severely condemned.

A lawyer's contemptuous act of hurling a shoe at a Judge was treated as highly unbecoming and gravely reprehensible, but the Supreme Court gave weight to his unconditional apology and expressed remorse. In view of that contrition and the surrounding circumstances, the Court held that a lengthy custodial sentence was unnecessary, while still marking the misconduct with serious censure. The sentence was reduced from six months' simple imprisonment to one month, and the fine was enhanced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sentence imposed for contempt should be reduced in view of the appellant's unconditional apology and expressed remorse.

Analysis: The appellant did not dispute the act of hurling a shoe at the Judge. The Court held that the conduct was highly unbecoming of a practising lawyer and gravely reprehensible, but took note of the unconditional apology tendered to the Court and to the trial Judge. Considering the appellant's contrition and the circumstances, the Court found that a lengthy term of imprisonment was unnecessary, though the misconduct warranted serious censure.

Conclusion: The sentence was reduced from six months' simple imprisonment to one month, and the fine was enhanced to Rs. 1000.

---