Back
2003 Supreme(Pat) 838
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ravi S.Dhavan and Shashank Kr.Singh JJ.
State Of Bihar
Versus
Suresh Prasad, Apr Saharsa
Original Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7 of 2003 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 12, 2003
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of humility and modesty in addressing pleadings and submissions in court, and the need to preserve decency and decorum in courts of justice.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Abuse of Court - Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1860 - A public prosecutor hurled a shoe at the Presiding Officer of the court and was found guilty of contempt of court. The court emphasized the importance of humility and modesty in addressing pleadings and submissions in court, and highlighted the need to preserve decency and decorum in courts of justice. The judgment resulted in a one-month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a public prosecutor who abused and assaulted the Presiding Officer of the court by hurling a shoe at him during a trial. The prosecutor denied the charge and requested to see the reports on which the charge was based.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecutor guilty of contempt of court based on the reports of the incident and the prosecutor's defense. The court emphasized the importance of preserving decency and decorum in courts of justice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecutor's actions constituted contempt of court, and whether his defense was sufficient to rebut the charge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for humility and modesty in addressing pleadings and submissions in court, and highlighted the importance of preserving decency and decorum in courts of justice. The court also referred to Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1860, which obliges a court to monitor a trial and may caution a pleader to stop badgering a witness.
Final Decision: The court found the prosecutor guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000, highlighting the need to maintain humility and decorum in court proceedings.
Ravi S.Dhavan, J.
1. On 22nd July 2003 the Registrar General was reporting to the High Court that a scene had taken place at the District Judgeship of Saharsa and the court proceedings had come to a grinding halt.
2. The District Judge Saharsa sent two reports to the Patna High Court on 22nd July 2003. As these reports are the events which took place and have been reported about by no other person than the District Judge himself, it is best to reproduce these reports rather than the court giving facts on the basis of the reports. The first report of the District Judge is number 26/Confidential. It is accompanied by a report which he had received from the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, Sri Arbind Kumar Thakur. The first report of the District Judge no. 26 is reproduced:
"I am forwarding herewith a report of Shri Arvind Kumar Thakur, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa sent to me vide his letter No. 48 dated 22-7-2003 with a request that the same may be placed before the Honble Court for information as also for necessary action.
In the above context, I may be permitted to mention that I was sitting in court and was hearing a witness when some of the advocates came inside my court and informed me about the incident that the Assistant Public Prosecutor working in the court of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa had abused and assaulted the Presiding Officer of the Court on account of being directed not to put an irrelevant question to a witness who had not supported the prosecution case. I was further informed by the advocates that the Assistant Public Prosecutor shouted in his court in defiance and, thus, acted in a manner which was in derogation of the authority and the dignity of the court and these acts of the Assistant Public Prosecutor was in the view of the advocates and the general public.
The situation was so volatile that all the courts stopped working here at about 1 p.m. on account of the advocates and general public rushing towards the court room of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. The Judge-incharge took the Assistant Public Prosecutor, noted above, into his own chamber otherwise he would have been assaulted by general public and subsequently he was escorted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who was on duty in the Court-Hajat.
So far as the action of the Assistant Public Prosecutor is concerned he threw his shoe at the Presiding Officer also.
I was forced by the advocates to come out of the court and I went to the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate to personally inquire about the incident as told to me by the advocates and I found the story and incident true.
The acts of the Assistant Public Prosecutor appears clearly acts of disrespect to the institution of Judiciary and it is also an attack on its independence. It further appears to be an attack on the entire system of the administration of Justice and exhibits a behaviour of an employee of the State on whose behalf he was appearing in the court and exhibits uncivility and disrespect towards the court of law as also it is challenging the authority of courts and at the same time it is trampling the dignity of the court.
In the above view I may be permitted to submit that the acts as reported and found are simply contemptuous.
I, therefore, forward this report with these comments of mine for the kind perusal of the Honble Court and as also for necessary action."
3. This report was accompanied by a report from the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa of the events which took place in the latters court. This report is in Hindi. This is also reproduced:
4. Thereafter, the District Judge sent another report also on 22nd July 2003 after making due inquiries on what exactly had happened in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa. This report is no. 26 A/Confidential of the same date. This report is also reproduced:
"In continuation of my confidential letter No. 26 da
