Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Rajasthan Hc directs constable who slapped the defence counsel during cross examination to deposit rs 25k with the DLSA
|
The Rajasthan High Court recently imposed costs of 25,000 on a police constable.
The Rajasthan High Court recently imposed costs of 25,000 on a police constable after he was found guilty of slapping a defence lawyer who was examining the constable as a witness in a trial [ADJ, Gulabpura, Bhilwara v Rameshchandra]. The court ordered that As we found that the respondent-police constable is guilty of unruly behaviour in the trial court and this Court while dealing with the instant contempt petition has devoted its precious time, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent-contemnor to deposit a sum of 25,000 with the District Legal Services Authority, Bhilwara within one month from today," The court also that any act in any manner attempted to disturb the process of judiciary or interfering with the duly court proceedings ought to be dealt with complete strictness. However, on an unconditional apology from the respondent-police constable, the court accepted it treating the same as bona fide.
The contemnor respondent-police constable justified his act by saying that the defence lawyer was pressuring him before entering the courtroom and was constantly hitting him on his leg once the defence lawyer kicked him so hard, causing deep pain due to which the constable lost his mental temper and softly slapped the lawyer. He also provided an unconditional apology. However, the defence lawyer refused to accept the apology and argued that the Act was highly condemnable and couldn’t be pardoned. While the court accepted the apology but rejected the contemnor /guilty police constable that if he suffered any injury on the account of a defence lawyer he should have immediately complained to the superior /presiding officer. After listening to both parties the court with this imposed costs of 25,000 on the guilty constable and the case was disposed of. The Court, however, made it clear that the case under Section 228 would continue.
Tags : #highcourt #trialcourt # DLSA #District judge #ipc
Allow Cookies!By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.