Court on its own motion vs Gurwant Singh

H.S. Bedi, J.

This contempt petition arises out of the following facts:

On 15th October, 1992, Criminal Writ Petition No. 651 of 1992 was filed in this Court by Kashmir Singh, the present petitioner praying for the appointment of a Warrant Officer conduct to a search for his son Harjit Singh who had apparently disappeared. On 17th October, 1992 the petitioner accompanied by Shri R.L. Bhatia, the Warrant Officer appointed by this Court reached the main date of CIA Staff, Mall Mandi, Amritsar at 9.00 A.M. On reaching there the Warrant Officer found that the main gate of the premises was locked from inside and was being guarded by a CRPF Jawan. This jawan informed a constable who was present in the CIA Staff building about the raid on which he came out of the gate and enquired about the identity of the Warrant Officer who disclosed the same to him. On this the Constable refused to open the door and also directed the CRPF jawan to do likewise and saying so, went inside the building. The Warrant Officer and party accordingly remained outside the main gate from 9.00 A.M. to 9.30 A.M. It has been further reported by the Warrant Officer that during this half hour, the petitioner pointed out to him that his son Harjit Singh, the alleged detenu, was in the first room of the building and was signalling with his hand. The Warrant Officer also saw a person who appeared to be handcuffed signalling from inside the premises. On this the Warrant Officer enquired from the CRPF jawan as to whether there was any other gate to the building and he was told that there was another gate on the rear of the building as well. The Warrant Officer accordingly deputed Anup Singh and Singara Singh who were also with the raiding party to remain there and himself went to the rear of the building and entered the enclosure but when he reached near the room where the detenu had been allegedly detained, nobody was found there and his attempt to enter the main building of the CIA Staff was frustrated by the Constable. When he told him that he should not behave in this manner, the Constable stated that he did not care and that he would face the consequences with the result that the petitioner and the Warrant Officer remained outside for another half an hour. The Warrant Officer also asked the Constable his name as he was making repeated telephone calls but after refusing to disclose his identity, ultimately gave out that he was Gunwant Singh Constable No. 747. At about 10.00 A.M. Shri B.R. Sharma, S.P. Incharge CIA Staff, Mall Mandi, Amritsar, reached there and the door was then opened and he was allowed to enter the premises. The Warrant Officer then searched the rooms of the Interrogation Centre but found that there was nobody in any of the rooms in which Harjit Singh the alleged detenu had been seen and only a few handcuffs were seen hanging from the iron bars of the window. Shri B.R. Sharma also told the Warrant Officer that nobody was ever kept in the building and it was used only as a meeting place for police officials. The Warrant Officer also demanded the Roznamcha from the CIA Staff but they stated that no such Roznamcha was being maintained at that place. It was in these circumstances that the present contempt petition has been filed.

Notice was issued to the respondent Gunwant Singh but he could not served despite repeated efforts. It transpired, however, that the contemner constable was in fact Roop Singh and it was the person who had been present at the main gate of the CIA Staff premises and he obstructed the Warrant Officer from discharging his duties. In his reply, filed in Court, Roop Singh Constable has admitted that he had not given his correct name and number to the Warrant Officer so as to mislead him and had obstructed the Warrant Officer from entering the premises as he was unaware of the circumstances in which the raid had been conducted and being ignorant of the status of a Warrant Officer, had refused to allow his entry without the permission of the senior officers, in the light of the verbal instructions from the higher authorities that no outsider was to be allowed to enter the premises of the CIA Staff unless his identity was established. The contemner also expressed his apology for having committed the contempt, if any.

The matter, however, did not end here. This Court in its order dated 16th December, 1992, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 651 of 1992 had also directed that as Harjit Singh had disappeared after he had been admittedly taken into custody by the police, a further enquiry was required and in this connection directed that the Sessions Judge, Amritsar, should conduct the enquiry and complete the same within three months of the date of the order. This enquiry was subsequently transferred to the board of the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The report has since been received in which it has been stated that as nothing concrete could be said about the fate of the detenu Harjit Singh or whether his body had been cremated as unidentified in the Shivpuri Cremation Ground, Durgiana Mandi, Amritsar, on 12th May, 1992 or that the person signaling to the Warrant Officer from the premises of the CIA Staff, Mall Mandi, Amritsar, on 17th October, 1992 was in fact Harjit Singh or not but as doubts had been raised on this aspect, the case was required to be thoroughly investigated into by a Specialised Agency.

Mr. Navkiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has alleged that the respondent Roop Singh, as a matter of fact, had admitted that he did not allow the Warrant Officer to enter the premises for almost one hour first outside the main gate and subsequently after he had entered the premises from the back gate and the conduct of the respondent in stating that he did not care for the orders of the High Court, the matter fell squarely within the definition of ''Criminal Contempt'' given in subclause (iii) of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and in a case of the frustration of an order of a superior Court by a contemner, no leniency ought to be shown.

As against this, Mr. A.G. Masih, learned AAG, Punjab, appearing on behalf to the contemner has urged that he (the contemner) was a young police official having a long career before him and he had thrown himself at the mercy of the Court without sidetracking the issues after admitting his involvement in the incident in question, and as such a lenient view be taken and the matter be dropped.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in a matter where the prestige of the Court is involved, no leniency is called for against a contemner, especially for one who interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs the course of justice. This holds even more truly if the contemner happens to be a police Officer, who is a part of the agency through which the system of criminal justice works. The contemner in his reply has admitted that he did obstruct the Warrant Officer through ignorance but ignorance is no excuse for violation of the Courts'' directive more so far a police constable who has undergone training before his appointment making him aware of his duties and responsibilities. The Warrant Officer appointed by this Court carried authority as a representative of the Court and any attempt to frustrate his functioning clearly amounted to interference with the administration of justice and calls for strict action against the contemner. We are, therefore, of the opinion that respondent Head Constable Roop Singh is guilty of having committed contempt of Court and accordingly convicted him as such. The matter is now adjourned to 30.11.1995 on which date, the respondent will be heard on the question of sentence.