The mandatory provisions of S.480 and S.481 of the Criminal P.C. must be strictly followed in contempt of court proceedings.

1. The sole petitioner, Janardan Prasad Mandal said to be a District Prosecutor at Deoghar, has been found guilty under S.223 of the Penal Code, read with S.480 of the Criminal P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. This order of conviction and sentence was passed by Shri A.K. Chatterji, Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar, on the 23rd July, 1968. His order shows that, while he was sitting in Court in the midst of a judicial proceeding, this petitioner "intentionally used such language and gestures as were insulting to the Court and violated its dignity. He showed frayed tempers and tried to shut up the Court by interrupting and raising his own voice undully." Thereafter, the learned Sub-divisional Officer began writing the impugned order. He further says that, when he was writing this order, the petitioner "left the Court in a huff saying that he refused to work" in his Court. This also caused a contempt of his Court. The learned Sub-divisional Officer, therefore, took cognizance of offences under S.228 of the Penal Code, read with S.480 of the Criminal P.C., and imposed the maximum sentence permissible under S.480, namely a fine of Rs. 200. There was an appeal to the Sessions Judge of the Santhal Parganas, who, by his order dated the 6th December, 1968, dismissed the appeal.

2. Mrs. D. Lall, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended, and, in my opinion, rightly, that the mandatory provisions of S.480 and S.481 of the Criminal P.C. have not been followed in this case; and, in that view of the matter, the order is illegal and must be set aside. The procedure to be followed in such cases is of a summary nature. The Court or the officer himself becomes the prosecutor and the prosecution witness. It is, therefore, necessary that, in such cases, the defence of the accused must always be ascertained. This has not been done in this case. Under S.481 of the Criminal P.C. in every such case, "the Court shall record the facts "constituting the offence" and "the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and the nature of the interruption or insult." Of course, it may be said that the nature of interruption has been mentioned by the learned sub-divisional Officer when he says that by the shout of the lawyer his work was interrupted or he felt insulted; but he has not given the details as to what statements had been made by the petitioner so that others also may know whether they are derogatory in nature, or whether those statements had been made because the Court itself had remarked in an undignified manner. It is, therefore, clear that the facts constituting the offence are not ascertainable from the records of this case. The nature and stage of the judicial proceeding has also not been indicated, and one cannot say whether the learned Sub-divisional Officer was at that time doing some administrative work, or hearing arguments, or recording evidence, or any such thing. So, the impugned order suffers from this infirmity also.

3. It is also apparent from the records that the sub-divisional officer and the District Prosecutor, namely, the petitioner, were not on good terms from before. From annexure-"1" to the revision application, which is a station diary entry No. 285 dated the 14th June 1968, two facts emerge. The owner of the house in which the petitioner was living was a relation of the learned sub-divisional officer and he used to tether his cattle on the passage which was meant for going to the road in front of the house of the petitioner, and the allegation was that the place had become dirty and children were afraid to pass through that road because of the cattle tied there. Some protests were made to the owner of the house, but he did not listen to it; rather he insisted that the petitioner should vacate his house. The second point is that the learned Sub-divisional