Accused in molestation case fined Rs 10,000 for derogatory language against magistrate

A sessions court has imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on an accused involved in a molestation case who used derogatory language against a magistrate in his plea against the magistrate’s court order. In the plea, the accused referred to the magistrate as a “cheater person.” The sessions court took strong exception to this language […]

by TDG Network - September 11, 2023, 1:16 pm

A sessions court has imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on an accused involved in a molestation case who used derogatory language against a magistrate in his plea against the magistrate’s court order. In the plea, the accused referred to the magistrate as a “cheater person.” The sessions court took strong exception to this language and stated that such derogatory language against the trial court warranted a stern response. Judge AA Joglekar, presiding over the case, made this decision last week.
Furthermore, the judge dismissed nine additional pleas filed by the accused and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 for each of them, totaling Rs one lakh, to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA). The accused is currently facing trial before the Bhoiwada magistrate’s court. The dispute arose when the accused expressed dissatisfaction with how the magistrate had documented the proceedings on November 8, 2021, concerning a witness’s testimony. Additionally, the magistrate made adverse remarks about the accused’s behavior. Consequently, the accused appealed to the sessions court in 2022 to challenge the magistrate’s actions. During the proceedings in the sessions court, the accused represented himself and alleged that the magistrate had made false accusations, taking advantage of the case’s circumstances and the magistrate’s position. The accused further claimed that on November 8, 2021, he had requested an adjournment, but the magistrate refused and used offensive language. The accused also contended that the magistrate failed to upload a detailed order and, therefore, sought the setting aside and quashing of the order dated November 8, 2021.
In response, the prosecution refuted the allegations and asserted that the accused’s revision application was highly contemptuous.