BIJAY KUMAR MAHANTY versus JADU @ RAM CHANDRA SAHOO

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 13-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

BIJA Y KUMAR MAHANTY 
A 
v. 
JADU @ RAM CHANDRA SAHOO 
DECEMBER 13, 2002 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND ~.G. BALAKRlSHNAN, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 19: 
Officer-in-charge of Police Station arrested accused despite production C 
of bail order-Contempt proceedings-High Court held the Police Officer 
guilty of contempt and sentenced him to civil-imprisonment-On appeal, held: 
When Order of Court is flouted the litigant should not be left without remedy 
else not only individual would suffer but administration of justice would be 
brought into disrepute-Under the facts and circumstances of the case, High 
Court rightly held the Police Officer guilty of contempt. 
D 
Apology tendered by the errpnt police officer at belated stage-
Acceptance of-Held: Apology was not sincere but was tendered merely to 
escape punishment-Hence not accepted. 
Respondent had assaulted a police officer and a case was registered 
against him. Sessions Judge granted him bail and in spite of production 
of bail order by the respondent to the officer-in-charge of the concerned 
Police Station, respondent was arrested by the appellant a police officer 
and later on released by the Magistrate. On a reference by the Sessions 
Court, High Court initiated Contempt proceedings against the errant 
Police Officer and found him guilty of contempt and sentenced him to civil 
imprisonment for a period of 7 days. Hence this appeal by the Police 
Officer. 
E 
F 
It was contended for the appellant that High Court's finding was 
based on probabilities and without production of any independent G 
evidence; and that respondent did not produce copy of the bail order 
before appellant/SDO and SDPO. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. It is of paramount public interest that the people, after H 
89 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A obtaining an order of the Court, should not feel helpless or without any 
remedy when such order is flouted. 192-DI 
1.2. Rule of law is the foundation of democratic society. Judiciary is 
the guardia·n of the rule of law. If the orders of the Court are disobeyed 
with impunity by those who owe an obligation to the society to preserve 
B the rule of law, not only would individual litigants suffer, the whole 
administration of justice would be brought into disrepute. 192-GJ 
1.3. The case against the appellant is required to be proved beyond 
reasonable doubt. The contempt proceedings under the Act are quasi 
C criminal. The standard of proof required is that of criminal proceedings. 
Therefore, the charge has to be established beyond mreasonable doubt. 
193-EJ 
1.4. In the instant case, the charge against the appellant was proved 
beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent was arrested at 7.30 a.m. from 
D his residence. The only other. person available at that time when the 
certified copy of the bail order was shown to the appellant was the mother 
of the respondent who was examined as a witness. The appellant crushed 
the order. Different persons have the tendency to use different language 
while narrating the same incident. It is of no consequence that the 
E respondent at one stage stated that the bail order when produced was 
'torn', at another stage stated that it was 'bundled' and with reference to 
that order, his mother used the word 'rubbed'. The said order was 
examined by the High Court before arriving at the finding that it bears 
marks of violence. The appellant admitted that as per his belief the 
respondent had been granted bail. H that was so, appellant would have 
F given an opportunity to the respondent to produce that order instead of 
arresting him despite that belief. The appellant wanted to arrest the 
respondent any way. The case related to an alleged assault on a Police 
Officer of a Police Station of which the appellant was in-charge. 
G 
193-F-H; 94-AI 
1.5. No fault can be found with the finding of the High Court that 
the act was a result of revenge which prompted the appellant to act against 
his belief that the respondent had been granted bail. (94-AI 
Mrityunjoy Das and Anr. v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and Ors., (20011 
H 3 sec 739, relied on. 
BIJA Y KUMAR MAHANTY v. JADU@ RAM CHANDRA SAHOO [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.) 9 J 
2. The respondent was deprived of his personal liberty despite grant A 
of bail by the Sessions Judge. The appellant has tendered the apology only 
after lapse of nearly 12 years. The apology has to be sincere and not merely 
to escape the punishment. It is not a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.