LexIN RE M.P. DWIVEDI AND ORS. versus .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, ,.• IN RE - M.P. DWIVEDI AND ORS. A JANUARY 11, 1996 [S.C. AGRAWAL ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] B Contempt (}f Court : Under Trial Prisoner>~Handcuffed while being taken from court to jail and jail to court without permission (}f the Magistrat~bi clear disregard of the Law laid down by the Supreme Court-Plea ~f justification on the basis of Regulation 465 (}f Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation;~Further plea of ignorance of Law-Held, not guilty <Jf contempt of court since written order (}f Magistrate not obtained C conduct held to be violative of the Regulatim>-Hence disapproved-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation;~Regulation 465. Under Trial prisoners produced beforejudicial Officer in handcuffs-His not taking any action.for removal <Jfhandc~ffs-Allegation that contemner was apprised of Supreme Court judgmenl--Denied--Unconditional apology ten- dered by co11te1nner-Held, contemner expected to be aware of Law laid down by Supreme Court--Conduct of contemner was serious lapse on the part of his duties-Hence, strong disapproval recordecJ.-Refresher Course at regular intervals to 1nake the judicial officers aware of the law laid down by Supreme Court and High Court-Especially those connected with the basic hu1nan rights (}f the peopl~Need for-Emphasis laid The writ petitioners brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that some members of the Khedoot Majdoor Chetna Sangath, were arrested D E and were handcuffed while being taken from jail to court and from court F to jail and were also paraded handcuffed through the streets. The court, in view of the judgment in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration and in Swiil Gupta and Ors. v. State <Jf M.P. & Ors., wherein the court had strongly disapproved the act of handcuffing of under trial prisoners, in this case, issued suo motu contempt notice to the contemners. Contemners Nos. 1 & 2, the Superintendent of Police and the SDO (Police), stated that they were not present at the spot and were given to understand that accused had attempted to resist the arrest and a large number of members of Sangath had gathered and, therefore, under para 465 of M.P. Police Regulations, handcuffing was essential. They also pleaded 347 G H 348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] l S.C.R. A ignorance of the law laid down by Supreme Court. B c D Contemners Nos. 3, 4 & 5, the inspector, Sub-inspector and Constable, respectively, who were directly involved in the incident, stated that they were not aware of the law laid down by Supreme Court and further justified their act on the basis of para 465 of M.P. Police Regulations. It was alleged against contemner No. 6, the SDM, that handcuffing took place in his presence, while he stated that he was on medical ieave on the alleged date. With regard to contemner No. 7, the Judicial Magistrate, it was alleged that on being apprised about the judgment of the Supreme Court, he had stated that the same did not apply to the case and the police had power to transport the accused as they wished. However, the Contemner stated that no complaint of this case was made to him, nor was he apprised of the Supreme Court judgment and further denied to have made the alleged statement. In support of his statement, he filed affidavit of the advocate of the accused. Coutemner further tendered unconditional apology for not having taken immediate action in removing handcuffs in certain cases and submitted that he was an young officer and the lapse was E not intentional. F ·Disposing of the petition, th" Court HELD : 1.1. Contempt of court in disobedience to the court, by acting in opposition to the authority, justice and dignity thereof. It signifies a wilful disregard or disobedience of the court's order, it also signifies such conduct as tends to bring authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute. Wilful disregard or disobedience to the court's order presupposes an awareness of the order that has been disregarded or disobeyed. In view of the affidavit filed by contemners No. 1 to 5 stating G that they were not aware of the law laid down by this Court, they cannot be punished for the contempt of this Court. [360-E-G] Baradkanta Mishra, Ex. - Co1n1nissioner of Endownients v. Bhimserz Dixit, [1976] 2 SCR 495; Prem Shwikar Shukla v. Delhi Admn., (1980] 3 H SCR 855 and Sunil Gupta v. State qf M.P, [1990] 3 SCC 119, referred to. 1 \ IN RE : M.P. DWIVE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.