2010 Supreme(Ori) 649
2011 (II) OLR — 1
B.P. DAS AND SANJU PANDA, JJ.
Misc. Case No. 1 of 2010
(Arising out of Suo Motu CONTR. No.2 of 2010)
In the matter of an application for time to comply the order dated 23.08.2010 passed in Suo Motu CONTR No.2 of 2010 read with Rule-27(a) of Chapter-VI of Orissa High Court Rules.
State of Orissa...Petitioner
Versus
A.C. Pahi and Another...Opp. Parties
Decided on 24th December, 2010.
Headnote:1. CONTEMPT - Proceeding - Suo motu - Action of Police Officials - Misbehaviour is a rule and expecting decent behaviour from a Police Officer is an exception - Law does not permit to behave in an unbecoming and uncivilized manner to any common man, who requires the help and assistance of the police, which claims to be a so-called discipline force - In the present case, prayer for acceptance of unconditional apology tendered by both the contemners stands rejected - Direction on sentence issued.
2. WORDS AND PHRASES - "Apology" - It means a regrettable acknowledgement of the offence necessarily implying a humble prayer to be excused for the work done.
3. CONTEMPT - Apology - An apology by contemnor, in order to be a mitigating factor, must, among other things, be out-purring of a penitent heart moved by a genuine feeling of remorse and it must never be an apology or a convenient device to escape punishment - There cannot be both justification and apology, for they are incompatible - An apology is not a weapon to purge the guilt, it is merely meant to serve as an evidence or real contrition.
4. APOLOGY - When apology is not a free and frank confession of their guilt indicating a penitent attitude on their part, but an attempt to justify their conduct under the cover of bona fides, a haulting, hesitating and vacillating apology deserves to be rejected and thrown out.
ORDER
SUO MOTU CONTR No.2 of 2010
24.12.2010 — Heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner-State and the contemnors in person.
The facts giving rise to this Suo Motu Contempt Proceeding are as follows:
In the night of 22/23.8.2010 at about 12.45 a.m. when Hon’ble Sri Justice P.K. Mohanty, a sitting Judge of this Court, was returning home by a car from Prime Nursing Home at Link road, Cuttack, where his uncle was under treatment, a police constable stopped the car to search at the Traffic Tower of Badambadi. When Hon’ble Justice P.K. Mohanty wanted to know the reason, Sri Alekh Chandra Pahi, Inspector in-Charge, Madhupatna Police Station immediately rushed in and getting annoyed shouted at top of his voice showing gestures in presence of the general public present. Even after some lawyers and journalists present there impressed upon the I.I.C. that the occupant of the car was Justice P.K. Mohanty of the High Court, Sri Pahi shouted loudly and answered in a very rough voice and made gestures and visual representations, which was not expected of him. Even after Justice Mohanty disclosed his identity, the police officer did not stop and continued with such behaviour. Thereafter, Justice Mohanty left the place. One Ranjan Kumar Naik, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Badambadi Outpost, who was all along present with the I.I.C., never tried to prevent him from behaving in such a manner. As the action of such police officials amounts to tarnishing the image of Justice Mohanty and lowering the authority of this Court, this court directed the Registry for initiation of proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act against Sri Alekh Chandra Pahi, Inspector In-Charge, Madhupatna Police Station and Sri Ranjan Kumar Naik, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Badambadi Outpost. Apart from that this Court also directed the Home Secretary and the D.G. & I.G. of Police of the State to make separate enquiry and file their independent reports regarding the performance of the I.I.C. at late hours of the night and general direction given to them in respect of their duties during night in dealing with public and the procedure followed by the police officer in detaining the citizens for the purpose of check up. On 23.8.2010, both the police officials appeared before this Court and were released on bail on their executing P.R. bond of Rs.1000/- each and furnishing an undertaking to the effect that they will appear before this Court as and when required.
Thereafter, on 10.11.2010 both the contemnors appeared before the Court and filed their show cause affidavits and the Bench presided by Hon’ble Justice P.K. Mohanty passed orders for placing the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for its assignment to an appropriate Bench. The Hon’ble Chief Justice thereafter assigned the matter to this Bench.
Initially, the contemnors-Sri Alekh Chandra Pahi and Sri Ranjan Kumar Nayak filed their show cause affidavits on 8.10.2010. Sri Pahi in his affidavit has taken a stand that on the fateful night of 22/23.8.2010, the night blocking was going on at Badambadi near the Traffic Tower with the help of A.S.I., R.K. Nayak of Badambadi Out-Post and some recruit constables. It is a fact that in that night the private vehicle occupied by the Hon’ble Justice was also checked by the recruit constables unintentionally just as a routine manner alike other vehicles without being aware about the presence of Hon’ble Justice. It is further stated therein that in absence of insignia, P.S.O. and Chauffeur in the car, he could not recognize the Hon’ble Justice sitting inside the car. Sri Pahi was at a distance of about 40 feet and immediately he was not in a position to know the factum of presence of Hon’ble Justice in the said vehicle or about the vehicle belonging to Hon’ble Justice Sri P.K. Mohanty. Further stand has been taken that since he had only joined at Madhupatna Police Station on 6.7.2010 few days prior to the alleged incident and had no opportunity to see