Tu bahar mil...: Convict threatens Judge after conviction in cheque bounce case

The convict, who was found guilty and sentenced to 22 months of imprisonment and fined Rs. 6,65,000, reportedly erupted in anger and threatened the judge.

"Tu hai kya cheez... ki tu bahar mil dekhte hai kaise zinda ghar jaati hai," the convict, identified as a 63-year-old retired government teacher, allegedly told the woman judge.

On April 5, the judge referred the matter to Principal District and Sessions Judge Dwarka for the referral to the High Court for taking up appropriate proceedings in terms of the order dated April 2.

On the day of the incident, Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Shivangi Mangla pronounced the judgement, convicted the accused, and listed the matter for arguments on sentence.

The court noted that after hearing the judgment not in favour of the accused, he erupted with anger at the Judge in open court regarding how the judgment of conviction could be passed.

"The accused started harassing the judge in open court in unofficial Hindi with commentary against the mother of the judge," the judge noted in the order.

The accused was also holding an object, and he tried to throw it at the Judge for not passing an order in his favour. Both the convict and his advocate started harassing the Judge, and the accused made the remarks.

The judge noted that the convict and his lawyer harassed her both mentally and physically, demanding that she resign from her job and acquit the accused.

"Then again, they both harassed mentally and physically to resign from their jobs, and they both again harassed to acquit the accused, else they will file a complaint against me and forcibly arrange my resignation," the judge said in the order.

The court expressed concern over the convict's behaviour and decided to take appropriate measures against him before the National Commission for Women. The convict's lawyer Atul Kumar was also asked to show cause why he should not be referred to the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings

The court has sentenced the convict to 22 months ' imprisonment. He has been fined Rs. 6,65,000.

The counsel for the accused submitted that the convict is a 63-year-old retired government teacher living on his pension.

It was further submitted that the convict has three major dependent sons who are unemployed. A request was made for a lenient view and a minimum sentence to be imposed on the convict.

The convict had been granted bail to challenge the judgment before the higher court.