'Tu bahar mil': Convict threatens judge after conviction in cheque bounce case

A 63-year-old retired government teacher erupted in anger, hurled profanities and harassed a judge in an open court after he was convicted in a case.

Advertisement

In an order of April 2, judicial magistrate Shivani Mangal recorded that she convicted the man under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, following which he “erupted with anger on the judge in open court as to how the judgment of conviction can be passed”.

The man, it said, started “harassing the judge in open court in unofficial Hindi language with commentary against the mother of the judge”.

“The accused was also holding some object, and he tried to throw it at the judge, and he ordered his advocate to do anything to get a judgment in his favour,” the order added.

Both the convict and his lawyer harassed the judge, the order added.

The order recorded the convict as saying, “Tu hai kya cheez … ki tu bahar mil dekhte hai kaise zinda ghar jaati hai (Who are you? Meet me outside, I will see how you reach home alive).”

“Then again, they both harassed (me), mentally and physically to resign from my job, and they both again harassed (me) to acquit the accused, else they will file a complaint against me and forcibly arrange my resignation,” the judge's order said.

The order went on, “Still, the undersigned (judge) stands against all the odds and always do the needful in favour of justice. The undersigned shall be taking appropriate measures against the accused before the National Commission for Women, Delhi, for such threatening and harassment.”

The judge issued a notice to the convict's counsel, Atul Kumar, to showcause, explaining his conduct in writing and the reason why he should not be referred to the Delhi High Court for facing action of criminal contempt.

The matter was subsequently posted on April 5 for sentencing.

Kumar appeared before the court on April 5 at around 2 pm, saying the convict was a retired government teacher, living on pension with three dependent sons.

The court then sentenced him to 1.10 years of imprisonment and imposed a Rs 6.65 lakh fine in the NI Act case.

The convict moved a plea to file an appeal, which the court allowed.

On the misdemeanour of the convict and his counsel, the court said, “Let the matter be referred to the principal district and sessions judge, southwest, Dwarka, for the referral to the Delhi High Court for taking up appropriate proceedings in terms of the order dated April 2.”