AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.—I am wholly unable to understand how on the facts stated by the Magistrate any offence was committed u/s 228, Indian
Penal Code. The Magistrate says that the proceedings in his Court were interrupted by the audible remark made by the accused. That is not
enough to convict the accused. The Court has to be satisfied that the accused intentionally offered interruption to the Court. There are no materials
on which a Magistrate could have come to the conclusion that the accused intended to insult him, or to interrupt his proceedings. Courts who take
action u/s 228 ought not to give room for the belief that they are unduly sensitive about their dignity. In cases coming under section, the Court is
both necessary to see that the powers are used only in exceptional cases. This is not the first instance in which the Magistrate took action under this
section. Constant proceedings of this character will have a tendency to interfere with the proper administration of justice, as they would put the
parties in fear of a possible summary punishment for acts which may be innocently committed. I set aside the conviction and direct the fine to be
refunded.