ORISSA HIGH COURT
Vinod Prasad and S.K. Sahoo, JJ.
State of Orissa —Petitioner
versus
Sudha Singh, Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur & Anr.—Respondents
Suo Motu Contr.1 of 2015
Decided on 21.1.2016
(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 12—Contempt of court—Suo motu cognizance— Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge guilty of their offence; nor it is intended to operate as a universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness—Apology is to be offered at earliest opportunity but if it is offered at a time when contemnor finds that Court is going to impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and it becomes an act of a cringing coward—It is not incumbent upon Court to accept apology as soon as it is offered—Before apology can be accepted, Court must find that it is bona fide and is to satisfaction of Court—However, Court cannot reject an apology just because it is qualified and unconditional provided Court finds it is bona fide—Purpose of proceeding in contempt is mainly to uphold dignity of Court and instill confidence in mind of people about sanctity of orders by Courts of Justice. (Para 5)
Result: Contempt proceeding dropped.
JUDGMENT
S.K. Sahoo, J.—This suo motu contempt proceeding was initiated on 3.2.2015 after perusal of the reports dated 20.01.2015 and 01.02.2015 of the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur, addressed to the Registry of this Court. This Court after perusing those reports was of the view that it was a fit case to take suo motu cognizance of criminal contempt of Court, as contemplated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereafter ‘the 1971 Act’) against Ms. Sudha Singh, Superintendent of Police Jagatsinghpur and Smt. Sabita Majhi, S.I. of Police, Paradip Police Station.
Notices were issued to both the alleged contemnors as prescribed under the 1971 Act and relevant provisions of Chapter-XVII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948, framed under section 23 of the 1971 Act, to show cause as to why a proceeding under the said Act would not be initiated against them and further orders as would be deemed appropriate would not be passed.
2. The first report dated 20.01.2015 submitted by the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur relates to interference of respondent no.1 Ms. Sudha Singh, Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur in the judicial work of the learned J.M.F.C. (P), Kujanga. It is stated in the report that on 14.1.2015 the learned Magistrate reported him by way of a confidential letter that a phone call was received from S.P., Jagatsinghpur bearing number 9439440000 by the learned Magistrate. The caller asked the learned Magistrate as to why he was sending Complaint Petition under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and why he was enquiring about ill treatment during police custody. The caller asked the learned Magistrate to stop it or else she would report against him. The caller also threatened him for showing highhandedness by enquiring about the ill treatment on the accused in G.R. Case No.42 of 2015 arising out of Paradip P.S. Case No.9 of 2015 for the offences under sections 399/402 of Indian Penal Code read with section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
On enquiry by the learned District Judge, it was found that four accused persons were forwarded on 13.01.2015 in the said G.R. Case No.42 of 2015 and it was found that there was no indication of place of arrest and ground of arrest in the arrest-cum-inspection memo by the I.O. and the names and signatures of the witnesses thereon have not been mentioned which is a clear violation of the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in D.K. Basu’s case and the requirement of Section 41-B(b) and (c) read with section 50-A of the Cr.P.C. The accused persons were not also examined by the Medical Officer belonging to State/Central Government service, while being forwarded to the Court, as required under section 54 of Cr.P.C. The Case Diary was also not transmitted to the Magistrate violating Section 167 (1) of the Cr.P.C. and therefore the J.M.F.C. (P) Kujanga had called for an explanation from the concerned Investigating Officer.
According to the learned District Judge, the call made by the S.P., Jagatsinghpur to the JMFC (P), Kujanga is an attempt to interfere in discharge of judicial functions of the Magistrate which is highly contemptuous. It was also indicated that during meeting of the Senior Officers in the Judgeship of Jagatsinghpur for the months of November & December, 2014, the S.P., Jagatsinghpur had left the meeting hall with a word not to attend such meeting henceforth.
3. The second report of the learned District Judge indicates that the respondent no.2 Smt. Sabita Majhi, S.I. of Police, Paradip Police Station (S.J.P.U.) produced a Juvenile in conflict with law before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jagatsinghpur in Juvenile Case No.40 of 2015 on 01.02.2015 and during the proceeding, the respondent no.2 threatened the C.J.M. to lodge FIR against him for misbehavior when she was asked to discharge her duty as she refused to identify the signature of the J.C.L. on the bail bond and to release the J.C.L. from custody and put he
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.