Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by The instant criminal appeal has been preferred under CHARANJEET KAUR Date 2019.08.14 142546 IST Section 19 1 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 assailing the Reason judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 17 th December, 2015 holding the appellant guilty of having companymitted companytempt of Court and imposing punishment of imprisonment for a period of one month and a fine of Rs.2,000/ Rupees Two Thousand Only to be deposited within a period of three months from the date of the order, failing which undergo a further term of imprisonment of one month with a further direction restraining the appellant to argue as an advocate or inperson, except in her defence, before any Bench of the High Court of Delhi or any Court or Tribunal subordinate to the High Court of Delhi for a period of two years from the date of passing of the impugned judgment dated 17 th December, 2015.
Notice was issued on the applications as well as on the appeal vide order dated 26th March, 2018, which has been duly served.
During the companyrse of hearing, the appellantinperson made an oral request that this Bench ought to recuse from hearing the matter which fact has been numbered in our order dated 11th April, 2019 while reserving the order.
This writ petition came up for companysideration on 1 st March, 2019, the Court passed the following order Ms. Seema Sapra, Advocate, who is appearing as the petitionerinperson in these writ petitions, has mentioned before this Court today that she has been assaulted by some policemen outside the High Court of Delhi last night.
The appellant had been exempted from surrendering vide order of the Chamber Judge dated 9th October, 2017.
The same were filed before the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition C No.1280 of 2012 on behalf of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited.
She prays for four weeks time to do so.
Suffice it to observe that the stated documents have numberrelevance to the question required to be answered in the present criminal appeal regarding the alleged utterances made by the appellant before the Delhi High Court.
She is at liberty to file additional documents, which were referred to during the companyrse of argument or any further document s which she intends to file.
Appropriate order will be passed after the additional document s are filed.
It would be appropriate if Ms. Sapra, petitioner inperson, files an First Information Report FIR to that effect in the Office of appropriate Deputy Commissioner of Police who is incharge of the Tilak Marg Police Station, New Delhi.
After hearing the petitioner inperson for almost two hours and this order being dictated, the petitioner submits that this Bench should number hear these matters.
We have heard the parties.
The same reads thus We have heard the petitioner inperson.
Even this submission will be companysidered in the order that we may pass after companysidering the document s .
