2004 Supreme(SC) 466

2004(3) Supreme 380
Supreme Court of India
(From Patna High Court)
R.C. Lahoti & Ashok Bhan, JJ.
Daroga Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
B.K. Pandey -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1998
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 317, 318, 332 and 396 of 1998
Decided on 13-4-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocate (A.C.), M.P. Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy, Harshvardhan Jha, Anil K. Chopra, Amitesh Kumar, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Braj Kishore Mishra, Ms. Aparna Jha, Ejaz Maqbool Ramesh Singh, Ms. Rakhi Ray, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Divya Roy, S.K. Sinha, Ms. Sindhu Pratibha Jha, B.B. Singh, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Ms. Sunita Pandit, Advocates.

Important point
When a Judge is attacked and assaulted in his Court room and chamber by the police officials on whose shoulders lay the obligation of maintaining law and order and protecting the citizen, conviction of police officials under Contempt of Courts Act is upheld with sentence of imprisonment.

Headnote:(i) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sections 2(c) and 10-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 228-Criminal Contempt-Definition-Power of High Court to punish contempt of Subordinate Courts-Police officials of Bihar attacking Addl. District and Sessions Judge in Court room-Court had issued order of non-bailable warrants against an Investigating Officer to procure his presence-Case was adjourned for several dates as this witness did not appear for cross-examination-When he appeared in Court in the afternoon, he was remanded to judicial custody-Appellants, Policemen’s Association met District Judge demanding for release of IO which was declined-A large number of police officers, without uniform, armed with lathis and other weapons barged into room of ADJ shouting slogans against him-Court peon who tried to shut the door was brutally assaulted-Unruly mob forcibly broke open door of ADJ and assaulted him-Due to manhandling ADJ felt dizziness and became unconscious-Police personnel took away certain records, damaged doors, damaged furniture and assaulted some lawyers-Show cause notices issued to 26 persons-Convictions-Punishment of imprisonment-Whether justified-(Yes)-Whether High Court can on its own motion take action of criminal contempt of Subordinate Court-(Yes).

       Held : In the present case, a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge was attacked in a pre-planned and calculated manner in his court room and when he tried to protect himself from physical harm by retiring to his chambers, by chasing him there and causing injuries to him. The raising of slogans and demanding unconditional bail for Jokhu Singh further compounded the offence. The Courts cannot be compelled to give “command orders”. The act committed amounts to deliberate interference with the discharge of duty of a judicial officer by intimidation apart from scandalizing and lowering the dignity of the Court and interference with the administration of justice. The effect of such an act is not confined to a particular court or a district, or the State, it has the tendency to effect the entire judiciary in the country. It is a dangerous trend. Such a trend has to be curbed. If for passing judicial orders to the annoyance of the police the presiding officers of the Courts are to be assaulted and humiliated­ the judicial system in the country would collapse. (Para 26)

       The High Court could initiate proceedings on its own motion under the Contempt of Courts Act against the appellants. On the facts of this case apart from the report sent by the 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge of the incident, Young Lawyers Association had also filed a writ petition. The Presidents of the three Bar Associations and the Advocate General were present and heard before initiating the proceedings for the criminal contempt. It has been noted by the High Court that “all the three Presidents of the High Court Associations and the Advocate General arrived at the conclusion that a prima facie case of criminal contempt was made out against the contemners”. This shows that the Advocate General of the State was also of the opinion that prima facie a case for initiation of proceedings for criminal contempt was made out and he was a consenting party to the initiation of the proceedings. (Para 28)

       High Court in its order has noted that the learned counsels appearing for both the parties have taken a stand that all possible fair and proper opportunities were extended to them. In view of the statements made by the counsels for the parties it will not be open to the counsels for the parties at this stage to take the stand that in the absence of cross-examination of the concerned persons, reliance could not be placed on the statements which were made on oath. Learned counsel who had appeared for the contemners before the High Court did not claim the right of cross-examination. Only at the stage of arguments a submission was made that opportunity to cross-examine the concerned persons was not given which vitiated the trial. High Court rejected this contention by holding that such a stand could not be taken at that stage of the proceedings. (Para 29)

       It has repeatedly been held by this Court (Ref: 1995 (2) SCC 584) that the procedure prescribed either under the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Evidence Act is not attracted to the proceedings initiated under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The High Court can deal with such matters summarily and adopt its own procedure. The only caution that has to be observed by the Court in exercising this inherent power of summary procedure is that the procedure followed must be fair and the contemners are made aware of the charges levelled against them and given a fair and reasonable opportunity. Having regard to the fact that contempt proceedings are to be decided expeditiously in a summary manner the convictions have been recorded without extending the opportunity to the contemners to cross examine those who had deposed against them on affidavits. Though the procedure adopted in this case was summary but adequate safeguards were taken to protect the contemners’ interest. The contemners were issued notices apprising them of the specific allegations made against them. They were given an opportunity to counter the allegations by filing their counter affidavits and additional counter/supplementary affidavits as per their request. They were also given opportunity to file affidavits of any other persons which they did. They were given opportunities to produce any other material in their defence which they did not do. Most of the contemners had taken the plea that at the relevant time they were on duty in their respective Police Stations though in the same town. They also attached copies of station diaries and duty chart in support of their alibi. The High Court did not accept the plea of alibi as all these papers had been prepared by the contemners themselves and none of the superior officer had supported such a plea. The evidence produced by the respondents was rejected in the face of the reports made by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Director General of Police coupled with affidavits of Mr. Barasi, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, two court’s officials and affidavits of some of the lawyers who had witnessed the occurrence. (Para 30)

       The contempt proceedings have to be decided in a summary manner. The Judge has to remain in full control of the hearing of the case and immediate action is required to be taken to make it effective and deterrent. Immediate steps are required to be taken to restore order as early and quickly as possible. Dragging the proceedings unnecessarily would impede the speed and efficiency with which justice has to be administered. (Para 31)

       It is unfortunate that neither the criminal proceedings nor the disciplinary proceedings or the inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act have been conclucded. No doubt the appellants had been suspended initially but in due course they have been reinstated. Some of them have retired as well. Inaction on the part of the authorities resulted in emboldening, others to commit similar acts. (Para 37)

       (ii) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -Section 2(c)-Criminal contempt-Act of police officials assaulting District Judge in his Court room-Whether police officials, contemners deserve any sympathy-(No)-One who is entrusted with the task of maintaining discipline in the society must first itself be disciplined-Like every other citizen he too is subject to Rule of Law and is legally responsible for his actions.

       Held : In the constitutional scheme the judiciary is entrusted with the task of upholding the Constitution and the laws. Apart from interpreting the Constitution and the laws, the judiciary discharges the function of securing maintenance of law and order by deciding the disputes in a manner acceptable to civilised and peace loving society. In order to maintain the faith of the society in the rule of law the role of the judiciary cannot be undermined. In a number of cases this Court has observed that foundation of the judiciary is the trust and confidence of the people of the nation and when such foundation or trust is rudely shaken by means of any disrespect by the very persons who are required to enforce the orders of the court and maintain law and order the people’s perception of efficacy of the systems gets eroded. (Para 40)

       The Judges are-as a jurist calls-‘paper tigers’. They do not have any machinery of their own for implementing their orders. People, while approaching the Court of law which they regard as temple of justice, feel safe and secure whilst they are in the Court. The police personnel is deployed in the Court campus for the purpose of maintaining order and to see that not only the Judges can work fearlessly in a calm, cool and serene atmosphere but also to see that anyone coming to the Court too feels safe and secure thereat. Every participant in court proceedings is either a seeker of justice or one who comes to assist in administration of justice. So is the expectation of the members of the Bar who are treated as officers of the Court. We shudder to feel what would happen if the police personnel itself, and that too in an organised manner, is found to be responsible for disturbing the peace and order in the Court campus, for causing assault on the Judges and thus sullying the temple of justice apart from bringing a bad name to an indispensable organ of the executive wing of the State. Police is the executive force of the State to which is entrusted the duty of maintaining law and order and of enforcing regulations for the prevention and detection of crime. (Encyclopaedia Britanica, Vol. 58, p. 158). The police force is considered by the society as an organised force of civil officers under the command of the State engaged in the preservation of law and order in the society and maintaining peace by enforcement of laws and prevention and detection of crime. One who is entrusted with the task of maintaining discipline in the society must first itself be disciplined. Police is an agency to which social control belongs and therefore the police has to come up to the expectations of the society. (Paras 41 and 42)

       After all, what the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had done. Jokhu Singh had appeared as a witness. His cross-examination was not concluded without which his testimony was liable to be excluded from being read in evidence. The learned Judge had exhausted practically all means for securing the presence of the witness. He would neither attend nor make any communication to the Court. Even the threat of initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act did not deter him from abstaining. To secure his presence a non-bailable warrant had to be issued. He avoided the service of non-bailable warrant of arrest and appeared in the Court in the late hours. He was not apologetic and felt that he was above the process of the Court. It cannot be said that the higher authorities of police were not aware of the behaviour of Jokhu Singh. Either they knew about it or they should have known about it. Instead of offering the bail, Jokhu Singh was busy managing for the Judge being approached or influenced by extra legal methods. Jokhu Singh and his confederate decided to take the law in their own hands and assault the Judge and anyone who came in their way. We do not think that any of the appellants deserve any sympathy or mercy. (Para 45)