Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Wanchoo,Modi
RAJASTHAN BAR COUNCIL - Appellant
Versus
NATHURAM - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Case 14 Of 1955
Decided On : 04/24/1956
CONTEMPT OF COURT - ARREST OF ADVOCATE - COURT PRECINCTS - CONTEMPTUOUS INTERFERENCE WITH ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE - MALA FIDES - INTENTION TO INTERFERE WITH DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE - HONEST, THOUGH MISTAKEN ARREST - NO CONTEMPT - ARREST IN VIEW OF COURT - OBSTRUCTION TO JUDICIAL DUTIES - CONTEMPT - DISRESPECT TO AUTHORITY OF MAGISTRATE - CONTEMPT - PUNISHMENT - FINE OR SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Shri Kothari, an advocate, was arrested by Sub-Inspector Harnamsingh in the court precincts while he was conducting a case on behalf of the accused. The arrest was made pursuant to a warrant issued by Sub-Inspector Nathuram on the basis of a complaint filed by one Maniram against Shri Kothari and others. Shri Kothari was hand-cuffed and taken away to the police station. The Magistrate, on being informed of the arrest, sent a report to the District Magistrate and also directed his peon to ask the police to produce Shri Kothari before him, but the police refused to do so. The Secretary, Rajasthan Bar Council, filed a contempt of court petition against the two Sub-Inspectors.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the arrest of Shri Kothari in the court precincts, without more, did not amount to contempt of court. However, the Court found that the arrest was made in bad faith and was a contrivance to prevent Shri Kothari from appearing in the case before the court. The Court also found that the arrest caused an improper interference with the normal course of justice. Therefore, the Court held that the arrest of Shri Kothari amounted to contempt of court.
Issues: 1. Whether the arrest of Shri Kothari in the court precincts amounted to contempt of court? 2. Whether the arrest was made in bad faith and was a contrivance to prevent Shri Kothari from appearing in the case before the court? 3. Whether the arrest caused an improper interference with the normal course of justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The arrest of counsel in the precincts of the Court, in itself, does not necessarily constitute contempt of Court. 2. An arrest in Court may actually cause an obstruction in the working of the Court, or, at any rate, it may well tend to the causing of improper obstruction. 3. Arrest of counsel in the court precincts, without more, may not amount to contempt of Court because it cannot generally be predicated of an arrest in such cases that it constitutes a contemptuous interference with the administration of justice or that it has the tendency to cause any such obstruction. 4. In order to constitute contempt in such cases, it must be shown that the arrest of counsel was made in bad faith or was a contrivance to prevent him from appearing in a case before the court or which was to come before it and that the arrestor had some motive or interest in such interference or that the arrest was a fraudulent proceeding to get round or frustrate some order of the court, or that the arrest, for a similar or other valid reason, caused an improper interference with the normal course of justice or tended to cause an undue interference with it.
Final Decision: The Court held Sub-Inspector Harnamsingh guilty of contempt of court and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- within a month from the date of the judgment. In case of default, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month. The Court dismissed the complaint against Sub-Inspector Nathuram.
MODI, J.
( 1 ) THIS is a contempt of Court matter set in motion by the Secretary, Rajasthan bar Council, against two Sub-Inspectors of Police Nathuram and Harnamsingh in relation to the arrest of Shri Fateh Chand Kothari, an advocate of this Court, practising at Churu.
( 2 ) THE material facts which have culminated in the present proceedings are briefly these. Shri Kothari was briefed by one Sagarmal in a complaint filed by him under sections 452 and 506, I. P. C. against his son-in-law Maniram and another person manoharlal (obviously a friend of Maniram) in the Court of the Extra Magistrate, first Class, Churu, on 22-7-1953. The allegations made by Sagarmal were that his daughter Mt. Lilawati was being treated by her husband Maniram with great cruelty and so she had come to her fathers house, that Maniram and Manoharlal had come over to Churu about four days ago and met Sagarmal on the night of the 21st July and called upon him to send Mt. Lilawati with them else they threatened that they would take her away by force and cut her nose and then leave her. It was also mentioned in the complaint that Manoharlal had stated at the meeting that "the Thanedar of Churu" was his friend and that it would not be difficult for them to implicate Sagarmal and his daughter falsely. Sagarmal further complained that the Thanedar accompanied by two or three persons of Churu had come to his house on the 20th July and had asked the latter to send his daughter away with maniram whereupon Sagarmal requested the Thanedar to find out from the girl herself whether she was willing to go but she replied to him that she would not. The suggestion is that this complaint had considerably annoyed Sub-Inspector nathuram who was the station officer of the Churu thana. Harnamsingh was the second officer. It is said that on coming to know of the allegations made against him (though not by name) in his complaint by Sagarmal, Sub-Inspector Nathuram went to Shri Kothari and wanted him to withdraw from the case. Shri Kothari did not agree. It then transpired that on 26-7-1953, at 10 P. M. Maniram lodged a report in the thana against five persons including Mt. Lilawati, Sagarmal and also Shri Kothari under Sections 403, 411 and 109, I. P. C. The allegations made in this report briefly were that Maniram had come to Churu to take back his Wife but that his father-inlaw sagarmal and his wife had refused to send Mt. Lilawati with him and that Shri kothari (who was counsel for Sagarmal) was at the back of the refusal. Maniram further stated that when his wife Mt. Lilawati came to Churu, she had brought certain ornaments of his mother (of course with his own permission) with her but she had declined to return those ornaments and that in doing so she was being instigated by Shri Kothari, among others. On
the aforesaid report a case was registered by Sub-Inspector Nathuram against Shri Kothari and Sagarmal (and three other persons) and a warrant of arrest was issued by Nathuram for the arrest of Shri Kothari on 28-7-1953, and made over to the second officer harnamsingh for execution, at about 10 or 11 A. M. It is alleged that Shri Kothari was in the Court of Shri Goyal, at about 1 P. M. and was appearing on behalf of the accused in Abdul Rehman v. Kalyan Singh pending in that court. Mr. Keshoprasad Gupta Advocate was counsel for the complainant in that case. Some two or three witnesses had been examined in chief and then crass-examined by Shri Kothari. The examination-in-chief of another witness had begun. It appears that Shri Kothari then happened to look outside towards -the door of the court-room (it is said that he wanted to spit) when Harnamsingh, who was in plain clothes and whom Shri Kothari did not know from before, beckoned to him and said that he wanted to consult him whereupon Shri Kothari told Harnamsingh that he was engaged in a case and that Harnamsingh might see him later. But it is said that Harnamsingh immediately pushed Shri Kothari below the vera
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
