LexARUN PASWAN, S.I. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B ARUN PASWAN, S.I. v. ST A TE OF BIHAR AND ORS. DECEMBER 12, 2003 (S.N. V ARIA VA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 345 and 349-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Proviso to Section JO-Slogan shouting and levelling abusive language against District and Sessions Judge and the Court by C police officials outside the Court premises-Criminal contempt initiated by High Court against the contemners pursuant to complaint filed by District and Sessions Judge-Conviction of the contemners for criminal contempt- Correctness of-Held, on facts, the contemners are guilty of criminal contempt-Since the offence was not committed inside the Court, the D District and Sessions Judge has rightly not taken action under section 345 Cr.PC and the High Court had jurisdiction. A bail application was pending before complainant-District and Sessions Judge on account of non-production of case diary by appel- lant-contemnor. Th~ complainant directed the appellant to produce the E case diary on the next date of hearing. When the case diary .was not produced on the next date of hearing also, the complainant issued a show cause notice to the appellant for prosecution under section 349 Cr.P.C. The appellant appeared before the complainant and produced an incomplete case diary. It was also found that the appellant was F present in the police station on the earlier dates of hearing and did not send the case diary to the complainant wantonly. The show cause by the appellant was rejected and the complainant directed the appellant to remain present till the rising of the Court and to file further show cause. G Thereafter, when the complainant was hearing another criminal matter in the Court, a group of persons in plain clothes and in police uniform started shouting abusive slogans outside the Court of the complainant. The complainant learnt from the members of the Bar Associations, judicial officers and employees of the Court that the H protects were being led by Policemen at the behest of the appellant; 724 ARUN PASWAN, S.I. v. STATE OF BIHAR 725 that a conspiracy was hatched by the other appellants to create A pand.emonium in the Court and criminally assault the complainant; and that they were present in the court premises with their official weapons for creating trouble and causing disruption of the court proceedings. The complainant also stated that Deputy Inspector Gen- eral of Police, after informing the complainant, lodged FIR against the B complainant. The complainant lodged two complaints before High Court about the action of the appellants. The High Court issued notices to the appellants for initiating contempt proceedings against them. The High Court also directed the Director General of Police and the Additional Director General of C Police to make an enquiry and submit a Report. On the basis of the Report, the High Court convicted the appellant-Sub-Inspectors to undergo a sentence of two months imprisonment. Another appellant- Deputy Superintendent of Police, was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default simple imprisonment for 15 days. D In appeal to this Court, the appellant - Sub-Inspector contended that he had not received any directions from the complainant to produce the case diary before the Court; that pursuant to the show cause notice, he had tendered apology which ought to have been accepted by the complainant; that the appellant remained present E inside the court throughout the day on the directions of the complain- ant; and that he had no knowledge as to.who were the persons shouting slogans against the complainant; that he had not played any role in the whole episode. Another appellant-Deputy Superintendent of Police, contended that he was sitting in his office at that point of time and that F he had no knowledge as to what was happening in the civil court premises; and that after coming to know of it he went to the spot and pacified the officers. Other appellants - Sub-Inspectors contended that there was breach of principles of natural justice since they were not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses; that their G names were not mentioQed in the complaint; that they were not present on the spot; and that the High Court is incompetent to initiate contempt proceedings against the appellants under the proviso to section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. H 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.