IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt includes within it even any attempt to interfere with the due course of a judicial proceeding.

JUDGMENT

Ganguly, J. —

1.This is a statutory appeal under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Order XXI Rule 15(1)(e) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 from the final judgment and sentence dated 3.9.2008 of the High Court of Patna in Original Cr. Misc.(DB) No. 8 of 2008.

2.The said Original Misc. (DB) No. 8 of 2008 was a reference through a communication dated 22.4.2008 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria about an incident which happened in his Court on 13.2.2008. The High Court treated the same a reference made under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter, “the Act”) made by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria (hereinafter, “the Judge”).

3.The reference by the Judge was made for the reason that during the course of the Sessions Trial No.46/93 on 13.02.2008, five of the alleged contemnors were on one side and the sixth contemnor, the appellant Ranveer Yadav, on the other side, and all of them disrupted the proceedings by aggressively exchanging heated words and creating unpleasant scenes in Court. The decorum and dignity of the Court was so much threatened that the Judge was forced to rise.

4.Out of the six contemnors, Bharat Yadav, Bimal Yadav, Ajay Yadav, Pandav Yadav and Madan Yadav are accused in the Sessions Trial No. 46/93. The appellant Ranveer Yadav, an witness in the case and was due to be cross- examined on that day, i.e. 13.02.2008.

5.The High Court on the basis of such reference issued notice on 11.07.2008 to show cause why the alleged contemnors should not be held guilty of Criminal Contempt for their acts set out in the reference.

6.In the joint affidavits filed by the first five contemnors, they tendered their apologies for creating the disturbance and stated that the main person responsible for the ruckus was the appellant Ranveer Yadav. They stated the scene was created by him to delay his cross-examination.

7.The show cause submitted by Madan Yadav, who is 76 years old and is one of the accused in the Sessions Trial No. 46/93, is a crucial one. Madan Yadav stated that the appellant is the prime accused in a case of murder of Madan’s son in 1998. In that case the appellant could be produced before the Trial Court for the purpose of framing charges only on the orders of the High Court. Madan further stated that he had been falsely implicated in the criminal case which was pending before the Court on the basis of a police complaint containing false allegations made by the brother of the appellant. The main reason for Madan’s implication is to pressurize him to withdraw the earlier case relating to the murder of his son and which is pending against the appellant.

8.The High Court after noting these facts observed that the appellant, on many occasions came to the Trial Court with followers who helped him in creating a nuisance in Court. It also observed that several Additional Public Prosecutors had withdrawn themselves from criminal cases against the appellant in view of threats and intimidation they received from the appellant. On the date of incident, even the defence counsel was not spared as is apparent from the letter written by the defence counsel to the Presiding Officer.

9.The High Court found that appellant had also managed to postpone and delay his cross-examination on various occasions on the pretext of illness and non-appearance on the fixed dates.

10.It was also brought to the notice of the High Court that a case under Section 302 IPC in which the appellant was an accused had to be transferred to another district in view of threats and intimidation given out by the appellant.

11.In the show cause submitted by the appellant Ranveer Yadav, he tried to justify his behaviour on 13.02.2008 by stating that on 12.12.2007, the Court had been informed that there would be a compromise. But he got miffed when the Additional Public Prosecutor made an appearance before the Court and he thought that the latter had appeared without the orders of the Public