10 July 2018
Supreme Court
Download

K.K. JHA KAMAL Vs JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001673-001673 / 2007
Diary number: 25614 / 2007
Advocates: PETITIONER-IN-PERSON Vs KRISHNANAND PANDEYA


1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1673   of 2007

K.K. JHA “KAMAL”                                     Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT & ANR.                        Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, 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 2nd 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

with an accident.

It  is  seen  from  the  order  of  this  Court  dated  22nd

February,  2017  that  this  Court  had  also  taken  note  of  the

2

2

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.    

..........................J.                 (KURIAN JOSEPH)

..........................J.         (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)

NEW DELHI, JULY 10, 2018.