AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 286 wordsKURIAN JOSEPH, J.
Respondent-Jharkhand High Court initiated proceedings against the appellant under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and convicted him for the
offence of criminal contempt and sentenced him to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. There was also a direction to the Bar
Council of India to take appropriate action against the appellant. It was made clear that until the appellant purged with the contempt, he would not be
entitled to practise under the jurisdiction of the respondent-High Court, except for the chamber practice.
As per the interim Order dated 3rd December, 2007 while admitting the appeal, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant was stayed by
this Court.
We find from the order dated 2 nd February, 2013 of the Bar Council of India that they had dropped the proceedings against the appellant on account
of his serious ill-health, having met Signature Not Verified with an accident.
Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.07.11 17:26:59 IST Reason:
It is seen from the order of this Court dated 22 nd February, 2017 that this Court had also taken note of the adverse health condition of the appellant.
Mr. Krishnanand Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-High Court, submits that the appellant has not been practising in the
jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court.
Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met and complete justice done
in case the Interim Order dated 3rd December, 2007 is made absolute and the appeal is disposed of, thereby vacating that part of the impugned order
on sentence of imprisonment. Ordered accordingly.
In view of above, the appeal is party allowed.