'Sentence Not Contemplated In Law': Delhi Court Sets Aside Magistrate's 'Hands In Air' Punishment For Accused

Principal District & Sessions Judge, South-West, Dwarka Courts, Anju Bajaj Chandna passed the order in a criminal appeal (later treated as revision) filed by two accused (Kuldeep and Rakesh) challenging their conviction under Section 228 IPC and the punishment imposed by the Magistrate.

For context, the impugned order by Judicial Magistrate First Class Saurabh Goyal in a complaint case held the accused guilty of contempt of court and directed them to "stand in the court till the rising of the court with their hands straight in the air".

Read more about the case here : Delhi Court Asks Accused To Stand With Hands In Air As Punishment For Wasting Its Time

Challenging the order, the accused submitted before the Sessions Court that the punishment amounted to a gross misuse of the process of law, and that they were convicted without being given an opportunity to show cause.

Referring to Section 345 CrPC, they argued that only a fine not exceeding Rs. 200 could have been imposed upon them and that too after affording them a reasonable opportunity.

The accused persons, represented by Advocates Kavya, Himani Verma, Aman Gahlot, and Hemant Kapoor, also asserted that the Magistrate's court had failed to appreciate that the non-furnishing of bonds would not amount to contempt of court or interruption as per the provision of Section 228 IPC (Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding).

They also submitted that the Magistrate court failed to appreciate that powers vested in the court should not be used to violate the dignity of the parties.

After hearing both sides and perusing the trial court record, the Sessions Judge observed that although the sentence awarded was less than three months and the same was not appealable under Section 376(2) CrPC and Section 417(b) BNSS, the matter was treated as a revision at the request of the appellants.

At the outset, the Sessions Court noted that the complaint in question was pending before the Magistrate and that on January 20, 2025, the accused were granted bail with directions to furnish personal and surety bonds.

The matter was adjourned multiple times thereafter, and on May 6, 2025, they were again directed to furnish bail bonds with a warning that default would attract a cost of Rs. 10,000.

Against this backdrop, the Court observed that the impugned order did not qualify the test of legality and propriety as, the Court noted, non-furnishing of bail bonds by the accused persons cannot be termed as a contemptuous act 'by any stretch of interpretation'.

The Court added that the act of accused persons not furnishing bail bonds does not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 228 IPC and can, in no manner, be taken as an intentional insult or interruption to public servants in judicial proceedings.

The Court also factored in that the Magistrate failed to note that new criminal laws came into effect on July 1, 2024, and that the proceedings conducted by the magistrate under the IPC were an incorrect application of law.

Even if proceedings are considered under the IPC and CrPC, the Sessions Court said that the Magistrate's order was 'absolutely against' the substantive and procedural law.

It was also pointed out that no opportunity was granted to the accused to show cause, as required under Section 345 CrPC. The Court stressed:

"Without hearing, petitioners (accused) were asked to stand in the court till the rising of the court with their hands straight in the air. This kind of sentence is not contemplated in law".

Furthermore, referring to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court emphasized that the fundamental right to personal liberty can only be curtailed by a procedure established by law.

"The object of law is to ensure that basic human rights are not violated. The judges are duty bound to safeguard basic and natural rights meant for a dignified existence of individuals. Every person appearing before the court (even if involved in crime) has the inalienable right to live with dignity and is entitled to equal respect. It is the duty of the court to ensure that no person can be detained without proper legal justification or without following due process of law", the Court remarked.

Lastly, strongly criticizing the passing og impugned order court, the Sessions Judge remarked that the Magistrate concerned had completely failed in his duty and responsibility to conduct judicial proceedings 'legally and properly'.

Consequently, the Court, while setting the order aside, advised the Judicial Officer concerned to properly read and understand the legal provisions before using his discretionary powers.