The Director of Consolidation is a civil court for the purpose of punishing the person guilty of contempt and he has jurisdiction to take cognizance under Sec. 345, Cr. P.C.

Om Prakash, J.

1. On 27th February, 1983, petitioner S.C. Yadav, an advocate of this Court, appearing for opposite party No. 2 in Case No. 1917 of 1984 pending before respondent No. 1, Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna filed a transfer petition (Annexure, 2) under instruction of his client stating that certain matters mentioned in the petition have created apprehension in the mind of the opposite party No. 2.

2. The respondent No. 1 recorded in his ordersheet that "while the hearing was being made with the sole purpose of stalling proceedings Shri SC Yadav, advocate, moved a pre-typed petition casting certain allegations against this Court. This petition was moved in the middle of the hearing and with the sole purpose of stalling the proceedings. As such Shri S.C. Yadav had committed wilful contempt of this Court. He issued a notice under Sec. 345 Cr. P.C. calling upon him to show cause by 4-3-1985 as to why an order under Sec. 345, Cr. P.C. should not be passed against him (Annexure 3).

3. On 4-3-85, the petitioner filed a petition for time stating that he would move the High Court against the order dated 27-2-85. Rejecting his such prayer the respondent No. 1 held him "guilty of wilfully interrupting the proceeding of the Court on 27-2-1985 and also guilty of having committed the contempt of this Court" and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month (Annexure-5). In his such order dated 4-3-85 respondent No. 1 states that "the accused was detained by this Court on 27-2-85 till the rising of the Court."

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that filing of a transfer petition by an advocate under instruction from his client does not amount to intentionally offering any insult or causing an interruption to any public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel No. 1 has submitted that the transfer petition in question was filed by the petitioner on behalf of his client and not by opposite party No. 2 himself,

5. In my opinion if an advocate files a petition for transfer of a case under instruction from his client who apprehends, even without good reasons, that justice would not be done to him, he discharges his professional duty towards his client. He neither offers insult nor causes any interruption to any public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding unless there is something to show that he has done so out of some mala fide or personal ill will towards such public servant.

6. If the transfer petition filed is considered to be frivolous, it must be rejected by a speaking order. But the advocate who files such petition under instruction from his client cannot ordinarily be held guilty of offering insult or causing interruption to any public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding. It is not necessary that the transfer petition should be filed by the party himself if he has engaged an advocate. Filling a pre-typed petition for transfer in course of hearing does not show that such petition was filed out of malice towards the respondent No. 1 or with some ulterior motive or simply to insult or to interrupt the judicial proceeding being conducted by him. No petition is typed in the Court room. Petitions are always typed previously. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of considered opinion, that this is not a fit case in which jurisdiction vested under Sec. 345, Cr. P .C. can reasonably and legally be exercised.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the respondent No. 1 could not have taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec. 228, I.P.C because the court of Director or Consolidation is not a Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court. In this connection he has referred to Purushottam Das V/s. The State of Bihar 1990 BBCJ. 227, wherein it has been held that compensation officer appointed under the provisions of Land Reforms Act is not a court within the meaning of S