Ignorance of the law, no excuse

By Justice P.H.K. Kulatilaka

[Part 2]

Article 105 [3] proviso protects the rights vested in any other court to punish for contempt for itself.

The legislative provisions to exercise these powers are laid down in section 55 of the Judicature Act.

It recognises Firstly criminal contempt springing from acts of open interference.

Secondly, criminal contempt in the cognizance of the court.

This category relates to civil contempt springing from acts of disobedience to court's orders.

In the second category acts of disobedience which amounted to contempt of court are laid down in the Civil Procedure Code, Partition Act and other relevant legislation. Very often the litigants are educated by their lawyers in these matters.

Hence the writer will concentrate in matters relating to the first category only.

Contempt in the face of the Court [ex facie curiae]

It means a contempt which the judge sees with his own eyes so that he needs no evidence of witnesses. He can deal with it himself at once'.

[Lord Denning].

The phrase 'at once' means at any time before rising of court on the same day.

In the good old days in England where the Common Law reigned supreme a Court of Law was very much a revered place and was known as the Temple of Justice.

Even to this date it remains a place of solace where all citizens look to mercy and fair justice. It is a place where the judges strive hard to arrive at the right decision. It remains a miracle that the people continue to respect and accept that decision. Judges at all times have endeavoured to keep the streams of justice clear and pure. Whatever obstructs their courses or muddles the waters of any of those streams is punishable under contempt of court.

All misconduct within the court room whilst the court is in session would fall into the category of contempt in the face of the court. Very often the judge would see with his own eyes from the bench or brought to his immediate notice either by the Interpreter Mudliar or the Court Sergeant that a person is improperly dressed or chewing betel or any such disrespectful act. He would direct the Court Sergeant to send him out of the court room or instruct the doer to do the correct thing. But if he remains adamant he will be punished for contempt like the youngster who wore an unbuttoned shirt ignoring the instructions given by the Court Sergeant.

'Committed in the face of the court' is never confined to a conduct which a judge saw with his own eyes. It covers all contemptuous acts which a judge of his own motion could punish a person on the spot.

If the Magistrate or the District Judge as the case may be finds that the doer had by his act insulted or interrupted court he may act leniently under section 388 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Such Court may cause the offender to be detained in Court custody and at any time before rising of court. There may be instances where the judge would warn and discharge the offender.

If the judge decides to punish the offender, in the case of the District Court he may impose a fine not exceeding Rs. 1500 with a default term of three months simple imprisonment and in the Magistrate's Court may impose a fine not exceeding Rs. 500 and to a default term of two months simple imprisonment.

Where the judge proceeded to act under the provisions of section 55 of the Judicature Act, on conviction in the District Court the doer may be visited with a fine not exceeding Rs. 2500 or imprisonment simple or rigorous for a period not exceeding two years and if in the Magistrate's Court the doer may be ordered to pay a fine not exceeding Rs. 1500 or imprisonment simple or rigorous for a period not exceeding 18 months. If it is the Primary Court, to a fine not exceeding Rs. 500 or imprisonment simple or rigorous for a period not exceeding three months.

To be continued