LexDAROGA SINGH AND ORS. versus B.K. PANDEY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DAROGA SINGH AND ORS. A v. B.K. PANDEY APRIL 13, 2004 [R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] B Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sections JO and 2(c)-Contempt of subordinate court-Assault on Additional District and Sessions Judge in a pre-planned and calculated manner C in his court room and chambers by police officials not In uniform-Jurisdiction of High Court to take cognizance-Held: Acts committed amounts to deliberate interference with the discharge of duty of a judicial officer by intimidation, lowers the dignity of the Court and interferes with the administration ofjustice and as such are not punishable as contempt under section 228 JPC, but D covered under the definition of criminal contempt-Hence, High Court competent to take cognizance of such matter-Penal Code, I 860-Section 228. Sections I 5(2) and I 0-Criminal contempt of subordinate court-Suo motu cognizance by High Court-Permissibility of-Held: On proper E construction, sub-section (2) of section I 5 does not restrict power of High Court to take cognizance of and punish contempt of subordinate court on its own motion-Interpretation of statutes. Sections 17 and 2(c)-Criminal contempt-Procedure for conviction- Held: High Court has to decide contempt proceedings in a summary manner- F It must follow fair procedure and give fair and reasonable opportunity to the contemnors-On facts, Judicial Officer assaulted in a pre-planned and calculated manner in his court room and chambers by police officials not in uniform-Conviction on the basis of affidavit filed, High Court giving/air and reasonable opportunity to contemnors-Opportunity of cross-examination not G availed at appropriate stage-Thus, no fault could be found with the summary procedure adopted by High Court in conducting the proceedings-Sentence of simple imprisonment imposed on contemnors justified Investigating Officer was to be cross-examined in Sessions trial. All 113 H 114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. A means of securing his presence were exhausted but still he did not appear. Ultimately non-bailable warrant was issued but was of no avail. After about two months, he appeared before the court and was remanded to judicial custody. On his behalf bail petition was filed after the court hours and was placed for hearing on the next day. On the same day one. of the B office bearers of policemen's association went to the chamber~ of the Judicial Officer for release of the 1q ~ut it was declined. Next d~y when. the bail petition was taken up, .it was withdrawn. Thereafter, the police officials not in uniform, armed with lathis and other weapons attacked and manhandled the Judicial Officer in his courtroom and chamber and reiterated their demand for unconditional release of the IO. They also C attacked the court staff and some of the lawyers and also damaged furniture and motor vehicles parked in the court compound. Another Judicial Officer sent report of the incident to High Court. It included names of police officials who were identified. Criminal case was registered and also writ petition was filed by Lawyer's As$ociation. D E Primafacie case of criminal contempt was made out and proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were initiated against contemnors and also show cause notice were issued against them. The contemnors filed their detailed r'eplies. Director General of Police filed his independent report which disclosed names of nine officers found guilty for the alleged incident. State Government issued different orders and suspended all the officials from service. Thereafter, Commission of Inquiry was also set up. Apart from the departmental proceedings, different criminal cases were filed against them. Some of the senior police officials gave their statements and identified more names involved in the incident. Judicial officer involved, his staff and some of the lawyers also filed their affidavits. 26 F persons were issued show cause notices. Out of these persons except for one or two, the remaining asserted that they were not involved in the incident and for proof they attached their duty chart. High Court dropped the proceedings against contemnors other than the nine police officials ·~amed in DGP's report. K being the leader of the contemnors was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three month_s and remaining 8 were G sentenced to ~imple imprisonment for two months. It was made clear that the departmental proc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.