Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2016

AJAY KUMAR PANDEY                         Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

IN RE:- PIYUSH VERMA ADDL.  CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)  JALAUN AT ORAI    Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. The  appellant  is  aggrieved  since  he  has  been convicted  under  the  Contempt  of  Courts  Act  and sentenced to undergo six months' imprisonment.  There is  also  a  direction  that  the  appellant  shall  not enter  the  premises  of  District  Judgeship,  Auraiya, U.P. for a period of five years.    2. In another case, the appellant suffered the same punishment and we are informed that the appellant has served the term of six months in jail.  While the appellant was serving the term, this appeal was moved and  taking  note  of  the  remorseful  conduct,  as expressed through the learned counsel, we permitted the appellant to file an affidavit before the High Court.   Accordingly,  the  appellant  has  filed  an affidavit before the High Court and a copy of the same has been produced on 27.06.2016.  Paragraphs 8

Page 2

2

to 11 of the said Affidavit dated 03.05.2016 read as follows :-

"8. The  deponent  states  that  he

sincerely  regrets  that  his  conduct

was inappropraite.   

9. The deponent hereby tenders an

unconditional  apology  and  assures

this Hon'ble Court that the deponent

shall  never  indulge  in  any

inappropraite  behaviour  of  similar

nature in future.   

10. The  deponent  undertakes  to

never indulge in any behaviour which

in  any  manner  would  result  in

lowering the prestige of any Court in

India.   

11. The  deponent  is  extremely

remorseful of his past conduct and is

tendering  an  unconditional  apology

for his past conduct and assures this

Hon'ble  Court  that  he  will  not

indulge  in  any  such  behavior  in

future also and is sincerely praying

that  this  Hon'ble  Court  may

graciously be pleased to accept the

present unconditional apology."

Page 3

3

3. In a recent Judgment in  Mahipal Singh Rana Vs. State  of Uttar  Pradesh  reported in  (2016) 6  SCALE 353, [Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2006], a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that once an advocate is convicted  of  an  offence  involving  moral  turpitude, his licence to practice will stand suspended for a period of two years.     4. Now that the octogenarian father of the appellant has taken initiative to appeal to the good sense of his son, who is around 50 years of age, and in view of the apology, we are of the view that the appellant need not undergo further incarceration.  Therefore, this appeal is allowed to the extent of removing the sentence  of  imprisonment  imposed  on  the  appellant, but  retaining the  order in  all other  respects and additionally, with the imposition of the suspension of licence for a period of two years.   

5.  Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for  the  appellant,  has  submitted  that  the  jail authorities  have  not  yet  released  the  appellant, though  he  has  already  served  six  months  in  jail, apparently  on the  ground that  the sentence  is not concurrent, but consecutive.  Now that we have passed the Judgment in this appeal removing the sentence of imprisonment  from  the  impugned  Judgment,  the

Page 4

4

appellant shall be released forthwith, unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case.     

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]  New Delhi; July 29, 2016.