' This order will be read in continuation of our order dated 14-11-2005 wherein learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that the trial Court was wrong in initiating proceedings under section 228, P.P.C. Against the petitioner when he had submitted application for adjournment.
2. Learned A.A.-G. Concedes that to proceed under section 228, P.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should have resorted to proceedings under sections 480 and 482, Cr.P.C. Which was not done. He relies upon 2000 SCMR 1857 and PLD 2003 SC 19.
3. For the just decision of this case, we would like to reproduce here section 228, P.P.C.:-- "228. Intentional insult, or interruption to public servant, sitting in judicial proceeding. ---Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such person is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceedings, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both."
' A bare perusal of the above-quoted section would make it clear that the appellant only submitted application for adjournment and did not do any act amounting to intentional insult or interruption to the proceedings, hence the action of the appellant does not fall within the purview of section 228, P.P.C. In this view of the matter, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order, dated 20-10- 2005 to the extent of proceedings against the appellant under section 228, P.P.C. Is set aside.
Nothing observed in this order would affect on the proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C.