Article 204 The Trustee of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), Section 4 The defendant who handled the issue of contempt of court apology, disobeyed the High Court order and abused it by treating Bailiff as a robber. The High Court said that the person suspected of it had committed contempt of court for damaging the dignity and authority of the High Court and was found to have interfered with the administration of justice and administration. Was. When he was under the umbrella of the Belfast amnesty, under the Habeas Corpus petitioner, he was neither initially presented nor found sincere, who was a mechanical and in order to clear Mbalah from irrational sanctions. Was not enough. The disobedience of the High Court court orders sought an apology to avoid punishment. The dignity, decor and authority of the court to see that the proceedings, direction and orders issued by it have been enforced throughout the province and not by any person. In the case of disobedience and neglect by the High Court, the High Court will not be reluctant to prosecute, according to the contempt court, the defendant's controversial act demanded a full dose of punishment, but he Chose not to contest the petition and threw himself at the mercy of the court, apologizing for this matter. The mitigating case was considered and it was read under Article 204 of the Constitution along with Section 4 of the contempt of court Act 1976, and sentenced to two months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs 4000 for a 15-day simple imprisonment. The sentence was pronounced.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
