IMPORTANT POINT
Act of police officials shouting abusive language on the road in front of the Court of District Judge, is not a mere personal insult to the District Judge but such conduct of police officers scandalizes the Court itself and impairs administration of justice inasmuch as it tends to demoralize the judicial officers and makes it difficult for them to perform their duties fearlessly.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 345-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sections 2 and 10-Criminal contempt-Proceedings initiated against police official on complaint lodged by District and Sessions Judge, addressed to the High Court-In a pending investigation for offence under Section 302 and 201/34 IPC for which a bail application was pending on account of non production of case diary, Contemner IO was directed to produce case diary-Case diary not produced even on the next date-Show cause notice issued as to why IO should not be prosecuted under Section 349 Cr.P.C.-Case diary produced was found not complete-District Judge directed the contemner to remain present in Court till rising of Court-A group of persons in plain clothes as also in police uniform were seen on road in front of Court premises shouting abusive slogans against the District Judge-Contemner who was ordered to remain in Court after rejection of his show cause notice, went out during recess hours and asked them to come to Court premises-Band of police officers was led by one Dy. S.P. and they were raising slogans of District Judge Muradabad, Bhagalpur Dohrana Hai and other abusive slogans-They were present in Court premises with their official arms with them for creating trouble-Addl. Director General of Police wrote FIR u/ss 342/504 IPC against District Judge-Whether bar of jurisdiction of High Court imposed by proviso to Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act is attracted in such a case-(No)-Conviction recorded confirmed.
       Held : A fascicule reading of Section 345 of the Code it is clear that offences under Section 175, 178, 179, 180 or 228 would constitute contempt only if they are committed in the view or presence of the Court. This would also show that offences under Sections 175, 178, 179, 180 or 228 per se do not amount to contempt. They are contempt only if they are committed "in the view or presence of the Court", otherwise they remain offences under the Indian Penal Code simpliciter. In the present case the alleged slogan shouting and leveling abusive language against the Judge took place outside the Court. Therefore, the District and Sessions Judge rightly has not taken any action under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court would not be ousted. The rational behind it is quite obvious. There would be no reason why the High Court should invoke its jurisdiction when the Court against whom contempt is committed, in the view or presence of the Court, can itself take action. Thus, bar of the jurisdiction of the High Court imposed by proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act is not attracted in the cases where the offences under Sections 178, 179, 180 and 228 of the IPC are not committed in the view or presence of the Court. (Paras 17 and 18)
       In the present case also it is not a mere personal insult to the District Judge. Such conduct of police officers scandalizes the Court itself and impairs administration of justice inasmuch as it tends to demoralize the judicial officers and makes it difficult for them to perform their duties fearlessly. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT

Sema, J.-These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 5.3.2003 passed by the Special Bench of High Court of Judicature at Patna. By the aforesaid order, the Special Bench convicted the appellants S.I. Arun Paswan, S.I. Sakaldeo Yadav and S.I. Syed Ahmad Khan to undergo sentence of two months simple imprisonment in CWJC No. 1220/2002 with MJC No. 722/2002. The appellant - Sudarshan Prasad Mandal, Dy. Superintendent of Police was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for 15 days. Criminal Appeal Nos. 473-474 of 2003 have been preferred by S.I. Arun Paswan, Criminal Appeal Nos. 668-669 of 2003 have been preferred by S.I. Sakaldeo Yadav and S.I. Syed Ahmad Khan and Criminal Appeal Nos. 678-679 of 2003 have been preferred by Sudarshan Prasad Mandal, Dy. Superintendent of Police.

2. We have heard Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant in Crl. A. Nos. 473-474 of 2003; Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of appellants in Crl. A. Nos. 668-669 of 2003 and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate in Crl. A. Nos. 678-679 of 2003. We have also heard Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State in all the appeals.

3. We deem it not necessary to recite the genesis of the incident leading to the filing of the complaint by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sasaram. Suffice it to say that the criminal contempt has been initiated against the appellants herein pursuant to the complaint of 19th January, 2002 lodged by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sasaram addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Patna. In the report it is stated inter-alia that in the pending investigation of P.S. Case No. 200/2001 under Sections 302 and 201/34 I.P.C for which a bail application No.1671/2001 was pending on account of non-production of case diary, the investigation officer - S.I. Arun Paswan (contemner) was directed to produce the case diary on 10.1.2002 on which date, on the request of the public prosecutor, the case was adjourned to 16.1.2002 on the ground that the I.O. had gone to Bank for giving evidence in a case and the case diary would be produced on the next date. But on 16.1.2002 also, the case diary was not produced. The learned District & Sessions Judge, thereafter, issued a show cause notice to the I.O. to appear personally before him as to why he should not be prosecuted under Section 349 Cr.P.C. On 19.1.2002, the contemner -I.O. appeared before him and filed show cause. He produced the case diary, which was found to be written only upto 28.11.2001. It was also found that the I.O. was present at the police station on 9.1.2002 till 7.00 A.M. but he did not send the case diary and, therefore, the shown cause was rejected. By order dated 19.1.2002, the learned District Judge directed the contemner to remain present in Court till the rising of the Court at 4.30 P.M. and to file further show cause. The complainant further stated that while he was hearing another criminal matter in the court after recess, a group of persons in plain clothes as also in police uniform were seen on the road in front of his court room in the civil court premises and after some time they started raising abusive slogans against him. The learned District Judge stated that he was informed by his bodyguard, some of the senior members of bar associations and also by officers and employees of the civil court that the band of police officers was being led by Sudarshan Prasad Mandal, Dy. S.P. Sasaram; S.I. Sakaldeo Yadav, posted at Police Lines Dehri; and S.I. Syed Ahmad Khan of Police Line Dehri. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant learnt from the judicial officers, members of the bar and some of the officers of the executive that a meeting was held in the chamber of the Dy. Superintendent of Police where the Superintendent of Police was also present for creating pandemonium and to assault the Distr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1266

Cases Referred (1)