Dismissed

Shiv Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2018CRLA/1661/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal appeal against conviction for disturbing court sessions and uttering contemptuous words during a First Appeal hearing, the High Court upheld the lower court's order convicting the appellant under Section 228 IPC, noting the appellant had refused to furnish an affidavit and caused obstruction.

What did the court decide?

Order impugned dated 16.03.2004 under Section 345 Cr.P.C. affirmed; appeal dismissed; no consequential order as fine deposited.

Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Others — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 42

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1661 of 2004

¶4

Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhat Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶6

Heard Prabhat Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel for the appellant learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record of this appeal.

¶7

By way of instant appeal, challenge has been
made to the validity and sustainability of the
judgment and order dated 16.03.2004 passed by
Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bulandshahr in Criminal
Miscellaneous Case No.02 of 2004, State Vs. Shiv
Kumar, under Section 228 I.P.C. sentencing the
appellant with fine of Rs.200/- with default
stipulation for six months simple imprisonment.

¶8

However, on the same day (16.03.2004)
appellant has deposited the fine of Rs.200/- and
obtained the receipt from the concerned court
bearing receipt No.852667- dated 16.3.2004.

¶9

Facts relevant for adjudication of this
appeal as discernible from record appear to be
that the case concerning First Appeal No.661 of
1987 was fixed on 16.3.2004 before the court of
Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bulandshahr, wherein
proceedings were going on, as some amendment
proceeding was required to be completed by the
concerned party (the appellant) and order was

¶10

¶11

passed by the lower court for appointing
guardian of respondents- Nitin Kumar and Kumari
Sweta. On 30.01.2004, one week time was granted
for taking steps. In this case (First Appeal
no.661 of 1987), the appellant moved Application
37C, wherein 10 days further time was sought for
taking steps. This application was accepted on
6.2.2004. The appellant moved yet another
application 38C on 20.2.2004, wherein it was
submitted that respondents- Nitin and Sweta- are
major. Therefore, there is no need for taking
steps, as directed previously by the court
below. This application was moved after the
court hours and the copy whereof was not given
to the counsel for the opposite parties.
Therefore, it was directed that the application
be listed for the date fixed.

¶12

On 16.03.2004, an application 39C was moved
with description that the age of Sweta is 26
years, which was cut and modified to 23 years;
whereas the age of the Nitin which was 23 years,
was cut and modified to 26 years. The appellant
was asked by the lower court to furnish
affidavit in support of the aforesaid fact
regarding age of respondents- Nitin and Sweta,
which was refused by him. Consequently,
application 39C was rejected by the court below.

¶13

While order was being passed, Sri Shiv
Kumar- the appellant misbehaved and uttered
contemptuous words in the open court, which
obstructed proceeding of the Sessions Trial

¶14

¶15

No.394 of 2001 (State Vs. Sonu). In the backdrop
of aforementioned fact situation the court below
observed that all the concerned record/papers
may be sent to the District Judge, Bulandshahr
for transferring the case to another court. The
next date fixed in the First Appeal was
29.04.2004.

¶16

Consequent thereupon, on the very same day i.e.
16.03.2004, it was observed by the Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Bulandshahr that accused- appellant
Shivkumar Gupta was found guilty for his
misbehaved in court by uttering contemptuous
words in the court during court hours, which act
obstructed proceeding of the Sessions Trial
No.394 of 2001, (State Vs. Sonu). Consequently,
proceedings under Section 345 Cr.P.C. was drawn
against the appellant on summary basis as
Miscellaneous Case No.02 of 2004, State vs. Shiv
Kumar and the offence was found to be punishable
under Section 228 I.P.C. Consequently, summary
proceedings was drawn.

¶17

The statement of the appellant was also
recorded on the point by the lower court,
wherein, innocence was claimed by the appellant.

¶18

The court below after considering the entirety
of the case and after appraisal of all the
relevant facts found the appellant guilty of the
offence under Section 228 I.P.C. for disturbing the
proceedings of the court, thus sentenced the
appellant with fine Rs.200/- with default
stipulation for six months simple imprisonment.

¶19

¶20

However, the fine so imposed was deposited by
the appellant, the very same day i.e. on
16.03.2004.

¶21

Consequently, this appeal.

¶22

It has been claimed on behalf of the appellant
that in this case the entire proceeding was
concluded the very same day and this by itself is
indicative of fact that the trial/lower court was
bent upon punishing the appellant. There was
nothing concrete against the appellant and the
appellant being a rustic litigant, never interfered
in the proceedings of the lower court and never
acted deliberately with a view to disturb the
proceedings of the Sessions Trial (394 of 2001).
However, he has submitted that the amount of fine
Rs.200/- has already been deposited by the
appellant as directed by the lower court.

¶23

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that
the circumstances on record is reflective of fact
that the appellant himself disturbed the proceeding
and not only this, but he also used contemptuous
words in the court, while the order was being
passed in the concerned First Appeal, which was
concerning the appellant, wherein the appellant
himself refused to obey the order of the court
for filing affidavit.

¶24

Also considered the above submissions.

¶25

Obviously, the circumstances which led the
case (Miscellaneous Case No.2 of 2004) show that
the appellant was required to act in accordance
with the order and direction passed by the lower
Court and in case, the lower court directed the

¶26

¶27

appellant to file affidavit in support his claim
then it should have been complied with, as it
was the duty of the appellant to support his
claim on affidavit, which he straightway
refused. Not only this, but when the order was
being passed, it is obvious that the appellant
was unnecessarily lost his temperament and made
contemptuous utterances in the lower court
itself and due to this act, smooth proceeding of
the lower court while conducting proceeding of
Sessions Trial No.394 of 2001 was held up and
the appellant was rightly taken to task and
summary proceeding was drawn by registering
Miscellaneous Case No.02 of 2004.

¶28

Thewholesomeviewofthecase
overwhelmingly establish fact that the court
below had acted and proceeded with fairness and
convicted rightly the appellant for the offence
under Section 228 I.P.C.

¶29

Accordingly, order impugned dated 16.03.2004
passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bulandshahr
in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.02 of 2004
(State Vs. Shiv Kumar), under Section 345
Cr.P.C. is hereby affirmed.

¶30

Consequently, this appeal lacks merit and
the same is dismissed.

¶31

In this case, the fine imposed by the court
below i.e. Rs.200/- has already been deposited
by the appellant, therefore, no consequential
order need be passed.

¶32

Let a copy of this order be certified to the

¶33

¶34

concerned trial court for its intimation and
follow up action.

¶35

Dt.06.09.2018

¶36

Raj

¶37

Shiv Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Dr. Anand Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nawab Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyamji Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another