Court on its own Motion vs Satbir and ors.

S.S. Dewan, J.

The respondents Constable Satbir Singh, SubInspector Ram Phal and Shri S.D. Prashar have appeared in this Court in answer to a notice to showcause why they should not be convicted and punished for contempt of Court. To appreciate the points involved, it will be necessary to set out the facts giving rise to these proceedings in some detail.

On 19.3.1986, Shri Arun Maitri who was then posted as Judicial Magistrate First Class at Palwal recorded the statement of Sham Lal, a resident of village Mitrol, as PW 5 in case State v. Moti Lal and others (FIR No. 117 dated 15.8.1984 registered at Police Station Sadar, Palwal, under sections 332/353/379/186/34 Indian Penal Code) Sham Lal having gone hostile, refused to support the prosecution case. Shri S.D. Prashar, Assistant District Attorney requested the Court to initiate proceedings against Sham Lal PW under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. Since Shri S.D. Prashar made an oral request, the Magistrate did not pass any order and directed him to make an application in writing which may be decided at the proper stage. It is alleged that Shri S.D. Prashar never made any application for the prosecution of Sham Lal on that day. He, however, directed the Naib Court Constable Satbir Singh of Police Station Sadar, Palwal to take the witness in custody. To be precise the words used by him were, "GAWAH KO BITHA LO". Sham Lal sat down for some time outside the Court room and then went outside the Court complex. It is said that when the witness was waiting for the bus, Constable Satbir Singh came there and asked him to accompany him to the Police Station Sadar, Palwal, as he was wanted by SubInspector Ram Phal. Sham Lal accompanied Constable Satbir Singh to the said Police Station followed by Moti Lal and his wife Smt. Shanti Devi, Sham Lal, Moti Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi were beaten up in the Police Station by Constable Satbir Singh and SubInspector Ram Phal. In the meantime, Rameshwar and Smt. Shanti Devi presented an application before J.V. Gupta, J. who was then on inspection tour of the Judicial Courts at Palwal. The learned Judge directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to produce Sham Lal and Moti Lal before him in the PWD. Rest House, Palwal. They were accordingly brought to the Rest House by the Deputy Superintendent of Police at about 4.30 P.M. Since the witnesses had visible injuries on their persons, the learned Judge directed them to be medically examined Dr. Anil Kumar Malik CW 5 examined Moti Lal, Sham Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi on 19.3.1986 at about 6.55 P.M. and found 9 simple injuries on the person of Moti Lal, two simple injuries on the person of Sham Lal and two simple injuries on the person of Smt. Shanti Devi as detailed in the medicolegal reports Exs. C. 10, C. 11 and C. 12 respectively. The Doctor also examined Constable Satbir Singh on the same day at 6.35 P.M. and found 5 simple injuries on her person as detailed in the medicolegal report Ex. R. 4. It is alleged that Constable Satbir Singh also lodged the First Information Report No. 56 dated 19.3.1980 at Police Station City, Palwal, against Sham Lal and Moti Lal at 4.45 pm. For the offences under Sections 332/353/186/34, Indian Penal Code. On the direction given by J.V. Gupta, J. Shri Virender Singh who was then posted as Sub Divisional Judicial magistrate at Palwal conducted enquiry into the incident and submitted his report, Ex. C. 9 on 29.3.1986. The learned Judge found a prima facie case against the respondents while holding that besides interfering in the administration of justice they had tried to interfere in the due courts of judicial proceedings which were being held by Shri Arun Mittal, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palwal. It was in these circumstances that this Court issued notice of contempt upon the respondents.

The respondents put in their affidavits and they denied the allegations made against them by the complainant party. Satbir Singh respondent has averred in his affidavit that Moti Lal and Sham Lal assaulted him by giving first blows outside the Court room of the Judicial Magistrate and Constables Puhul Singh and Yad Ram rescued him and then he got a case registered against the said assailants in Police Station City, Palwal under sections 332/353/186/34, Indian Penal Code. The plea of SubInspector Ram Phal is that he had been falsely involved by the complainant party because he refused to oblige them by not transferring Constable Satbir Singh to the Police Lines. Since the parties disclose certain factual matters, this Court considers it desirable to give them an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective claims.

It is an admitted fact that on 19.2.1986, the statement of Sham Lal PW in case State v. Moti Lal and others was recorded in the Court of Shri Arun Maitri, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palwal and the said witness having gone hostile. Shri. S.D. Prashar, Assistant District Attorney requested the Court to launch proceedings against him under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, as according to him he had made a false statement. The Court, however, directed him (Shri S.D. Prashar) to make an application in writing so that the same may be decided at the proper stage.

The first matter for determination before us is the one of fact. The question is whether the incident took place as alleged by the complainant party or the respondents. Smt. Shanti Devi, Sham Lal and Moti Lal CWs have reiterated what they said in the complaint by deposing that since Sham Lal had refused to support the prosecution case, he (Sham Lal) and Moti Lal were beaten up in the Police Station Sadar Palwal by Constable Satbir Singh and Sub Inspector Ram Phal. Their testimony finds further corroboration from the statement of Dr. Anil Kumar Malik CW 5 who medically examined them on 19.3.1986 at 6.55 PM and found as many as 13 simple injuries on their persons, having been caused by blunt weapons within a duration of 12 hours. The account given by those witnesses is forthright and wholly without blemish. The crossexamination directed against them lacks thrust and direction. So far as the version of Constable Satbir Singh that he was manhandled by Sham Lal and Moti Lal (CWs) outside the Court room of Shri Arun Maitri Judicial Magistrate First Class Palwal, is concerned, we may state at once that even from the evidence of the respondents, we are unable to come to the conclusion that the incident took place outside the Court premises. For one thing, if that were so, the Magistrate Shri Arun Maitri could not have, to our mind, failed to see him being assaulted outside the Court room. Shri Arun Maitri has not deposed to have seen such an incident. We are, therefore, not prepared to believe the statement of Constable Satbir Singh that he was assaulted by Sham Lal and Moti Lal outside the Court room of Shri Arun Maitri. Even otherwise, the witnesses examined by the respondents have made prevaricating statements so far as the number of injuries allegedly sustained by Constable Satbir Singh are concerned as also the persons who allegdly rescued him. Raj Singh RCW 1 has stated that he noticed only one injury on the little finger of Satbir Singh and Om Parkash, a tea stall holder and two Constables rescued Satbir Singh from clutches of Sham Lal and Moti Lal, Om Parkash RCW 2 who was running a teastall in the Court premises deposed that he remained sitting in his shop. Constable Phul Singh RCW 3 stated that he did not see any injury on the person of Satbir Singh. Constable Yad Ram RCW 4 deposed that he, Phul Singh and Raj Singh Advocate rescued Satbir Singh and he noticed only one injury on his knee. According to the witnesses examined by the respondents, they noticed only two injuries on the person of Satbir Singh but they stand falsified by Dr. Anil Kumar Malik who found five superficial injuries on his person and according to him, those injuries could be selfsuffered. Therefore the circumstantial evidence also belies the version given by Constable Satbir Singh.

In the circumstances, we are bound to hold that after making his statement in the Court of Shri Arun Maitri, when Sham Lal was waiting for the bus outside the Court premises at about 3.15 PM, Constable Satbir Singh took him to the Police Station Sadar, Palwal where he (Sham Lal) and his companion Moti Lal were beaten up by Constable Satbir Singh and Sub Inspector Ram Phal for not supporting the prosecution case in the said Court. The story propounded by Constable Satbir Singh that he was assaulted by the complainant party in the Court premises is too thick to carry any conviction with us.

The position which was strenuously advanced before us by Shri R.S. Ghai Advocate on behalf of the Court was that the conduct of these police officials constitutes an improper interference with the administration of justice and a contemptuous interference with the judicial proceedings. We agree with Mr. Ghai that Constable Satbir Singh and Sub Inspector Ram Phal had acted unlawfully and committed contempt of Court for beating Sham Lal and Moti Lal in the Police Station for not supporting the prosecution case in the Court of Shri Arun Maitri and we cannot but express our severe disapproval of their conduct. So far as the other respondent Shri S.D. Prashar is concerned, we are of the opinion that his case stands on a somewhat different footing. The only part attributed to Shri S.D. Prashar was that when Sham Lal had gone hostile and refused to support the prosecution case in the said Court Shri Prashar requested the Magistrate to launch proceedings against the said witness under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code and no other overt act was attributed to him. We consider it sufficient to say under the circumstances that no case of contempt of Court has been established against Shri S.D. Prashar.

The only question which remains to be decided is as to what punishment we should give to Sub Inspector Ram Phal and Constable Satbir Singh. The learned counsel for the contemners tendered apology and in reply to the showcause notice it was also done so, in the event of their being found guilty. He submitted that generosity, forgiveness and pardon should be the criteria is such cases. In a case of this kind, which is serious, the contemners cant be allowed to get away by simply feeling sorry by way of apology as the easiest way. In the special circumstances of this case, we do not accept the apology tendered by Sub Inspector Ram Phal and Constable Satbir Singh.

For the foregoing reasons, Sub Inspector Ram Phal and Constable Satbir Singh have been proved guilty for committing the contempt of Court, under Section 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. They are convicted for this offence accordingly and each of them is sentenced to pay Rs. 100/ as fine. In case of default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. The fine shall be deposited within 15 days from today.

Sd/ S.S. Dewan,

Judge.

Sd/ S.D. Bajaj,

Judge.

JUDGMENT accordingly.