Find a Lawyer

YUSUF ALI KHAN BAR-AT-LAW versus THE STATE

Courts contempt of court Act 1926 (Act of Courts (XII of 1926), section 3, Proviso I Proviso considers two types of tender of pardon (i) before conviction, (IL) after sentencing (i) category And may be sentenced under category (ii) demanding an apology during contempt of court proceedings before sentencing. . . shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in this section for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a Court subordinate to it."

.

7. It seems to us that the first proviso to section 3, as reproduced above, contemplates two categories of cases in which apology is tendered by the condemner to the satisfaction of the Court ;

(a) before conviction, in which case the accused may be discharged ;

(b) after conviction, in which case, the punishment awarded may be remitted.

Now, in the present case Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan had tendered an 4 apology during the course of contempt proceedings, and the effect of the apology was duly considered by the Bench before convict ing and sentencing him. Under the circumstances, Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan's case does not fall under either of the two categories covered by the first proviso. He already stands convicted and , sentenced, after his apology was found to be unsatisfactory by the Court. We are, therefore, respectfully of the view that we do not, have any power or jurisdiction, in terms of section 3 of the Act, 1926, to remit the punishment already awarded to Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. It is now for the Bar Council to decide the reference in accordance with the law.

Petition dismissed in limine.