Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 1548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
S.S. SHINDE & P.R. BORA, JJ.
Shri. U.L. Telgaonkar - CONTEMPT PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. - RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 04 OF 2013
Decided On : 5th August, 2014.
Advocate for petitioner: Mr. R.D. Sanap (appointed)
Advocate for Respondent No.3: Mr. S.T. Shelke h/f Mr. M.M. Neralikar
APP for Respondent/State: Mr. G.K. Naik Thigale
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unauthorized actions by law enforcement officials that deviate from standard procedures and court orders, particularly in relation to the treatment and custody of accused persons, may constitute criminal contempt.
Headnote:
Contempt - Criminal Contempt - Indian Penal Code, Section 306 read with 34 - Prisons Act, 1894, Section 24(2) - D.K. Basu V/s State of West Bengal - Human Rights Commission guidelines
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a police head constable's unauthorized admission of a convict to a hospital instead of a district prison, leading to contempt proceedings against him. The contemnor's actions were deemed to have overstepped official powers and favored the convict, potentially allowing them to evade the court's conviction order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contemnor's actions amounted to criminal contempt as he had unauthorizedly kept the convict out of jail for four days, contrary to the court's order. However, the court ultimately accepted the contemnor's unconditional apology and discharged the contempt proceedings.
Issues: The key issue was whether the contemnor's actions of admitting the convict to a hospital instead of a district prison constituted criminal contempt and willful disobedience of the court's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the provisions of the Prisons Act, 1894, which require the medical examination of criminal prisoners upon admission to prison, and the guidelines from the D.K. Basu case and the Human Rights Commission regarding the provision of medical aid to accused persons in custody. The contemnor's failure to follow the standard procedure and obtain prior permission for the convict's medical check-up was a crucial factor in the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court ultimately discharged the contempt proceedings against the contemnor after accepting his unconditional apology and considering the circumstances surrounding the admission of the convict to the hospital.
S.S.SHINDE, J.
Present Contempt Proceedings are arising out of Reference dated 18/20th April, 2013 by the District Judge-3, Ambajogai to this Court.
(I) As per the contents of said reference, it appears that, on 8th April, 2013, the four accused namely (i) Dhammanand S/o Gangadharrao Munde, (ii) Shakuntalabai @ Sabiya Raosaheb Gode, (iii) Raju s/o Mukund Munde, and (iv) Sudam @ Sudhakar s/o Mukund Munde, all resident of Parli-Vaijnath were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 81/2009. They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. After passing the order of sentence, all the four accused were handed over to Police Head Constable Aniskhan Pathan, Railway Police Station, Parli Vaijnath, Taluka Parli-Vaijnath, Dist. Beed along with conviction warrants with direction to deposit them in the District Prison, Beed.
(ii) PHC Aniskhan Pathan has lodged only three accused in the District Prison, Beed. He has admitted one accused Dhammanand S/o Gangadharrao Munde to the District Hospital, Beed, instead of admitting him in the District Prison, Beed.
(iii) On the next day i.e. on 9/4/2013, said Aniskhan Pathan has reported this fact to the Court by his report. He has misused seal of his superior. He has affixed the seal of Police Sub-Inspector Railway Police Station, Parli-Vaijnath below the report and signed himself thereon. His explanation was called as to why he has admitted the convict in to the hospital instead of District Prison, Beed without prior permission. He was also directed to submit treatment papers of convict of the District Hospital, Beed.
(iv) On 12/04/2013, PHC Aniskhan Pathan has submitted his explanation stating that, before admission to Jail, medical examination of convict was necessary. Accordingly, he admitted the convicts in hospital. Explanation given by PHC, Aniskhan Pathan is not satisfactory. PHC Aniskhan Pathan was directed to produce treatment papers of convict from the District Hospital, Beed. He has not produced any treatment papers of convict from the District Hospital, Beed, but he has produced certain medical papers of convict from Government Medical College, Aurangabad. He has also reported that, on 11/04/2013, convict was referred by the District Hospital, Beed to the Medical College, Aurangabad. The convict was shifted from Beed to Aurangabad without permission of the court or intimation to the Jail authority. As treatment papers are not produced before the Court, there was no medial test of the said convict carried out at the District Hospital, Beed. There is well equipped and renowned medical college and hospital available at Ambajogai. Instead of referring the convict to Ambajogai, the convict was referred to Aurangabad i.e. beyond the jurisdiction of Beed District. The activities of concerned Medical officer also doubtful and subject to disciplinary action against him. Referral chit does not bear any date or time when the convict was moved from the District Hospital, Beed. When notice came to be issued to the Police Head Constable Aniskhan Pathan, he has admitted the convict to the District Prison Beed and filed compliance report to the Court on 12/04/2013.
(v) Activities of PHC Aniskhan Pathan amount to Criminal contempt. He has over exercised his official powers to help the convict and helped him to get bail on the ground of sickness and not to suffer conviction order passed by the Court. PHC Aniskhan Pathan was kept the convict out of Jail for four days unauthorizedly and illegally.
(vi) If, such practice is developed then every convict will prefer to admit in the hospital instead of Jail. Hence, the reference for taking cognizance of Criminal Contempt. Necessary action may kindly be taken against all the concerned.
2. This Court on 10th July, 2013, after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties issued notice to Anisk
