Court on its own motion vs S.I.Ram Kumar, under-trial (lodged in Sub Jail, Sirsa) and ors.

C.S. Tiwana, J.

SubInspector Ram Kumar and constable Major Singh, who were to be tried in the Dabwali murder case, were required to be lodged as undertrial prisoners in the judicial lock up located at the SubJail, Sirsa. They were found to be missing from there by A.S. Bains, J. when he paid a surprise visit to the said subjail. They were reported to be at Civil Hospital, Sirsa, as they were said to be suffering from certain diseases. Bains J., then proceeded to the Civil hospital and found only Constable Major Singh to be sitting in it chair. SubInspector Ram Kumar was not at the premises of the civil hospital but he subsequently made his appearance there. Further inquiry by Bains, J., revealed that Dr. Karan Singh Medical Superintendent of the Civil hospital and Dr. Gulab Singh Medical Officer of that hospital had helped the said prisoners in remaining away from, the lockup. He took cognizance of an offence of criminal contempt said to have been committed by both the prisoners andboth the doctors. It was Ch. Surti Lal, Deputy Superintendent of the subjail, who, on the feigned illness of the prisoners, had sent them for a medical checkup to the civil hospital. He was also proceeded against for criminal contempt as it was with his connivance that both the prisoners were able to got out of the judicial lockup and remain at the civil hospital.

It was mentioned in the order dated January 13, 1982, taking cognizance of the contempt committed by all the five contemners that the bail applications filed on behalf of SubInspector Ram Kumar and Constable Major Singh had been rejected by the High Court and thus they were said have flouted the orders of the Court by not, getting themselves confined at, the jail promises. It was only SubInspector Ram Kumar who had applied for the grant of bail to this Court and the same had been rejected.

Some important legal questions have arisen before us for determination. Firstly, whether the prisoners by felgning illness ca be said to have disobeyed the orders of the different Courts in relation to their being kept at the judicial lockup ? Secondly, whether the Deputy Superintendent of the sub Jail by sending a prisoner at his request for medical treatment, has committed an offence of contempt of Court when, as pleaded by him, he had no other course open to him but to comply with para 37(1) and (2) of Appendix.I to the Jail Manual. It provides that any prisoner desiring to see the medical subordinate shall, without delay be reported by the officer in immediate charge, of the prisoner to the Deputy Superintendent who shall, without delay, carry into effect all directions given by the medical officer or medical subordinate. Thirdly, it has to be decided whether Dr. Karan Singh and Dr. Gulab Singh, by keeping a prisoner for a longer time than required to diagnose the illness, are guilty or the offence of contempt or Court.

Mr. R.S. Palta learned counsel assisting the Court has only been able to lay his hands on The State v. Vishwanath Prasad, Verma and another, AIR 1951 Patna 451(2) which according to him. would help in the determination of all the said questions. It was a case in which a Constable was tried in relation to the commission of offences under Section 343, 392 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He was on bail but the same was cancelled by a Magistrate on this allegation that he was holding out the threats to the prosecution witnesses and the lawyers. A warrant had been issued for keeping him in the judicial lockup of a certain subjail. On the next day of the order a complaint was made to the Magistrate that the Constable was roaming about in the Court compound. It was the Court SubInspector who, having not complied with the order of the Magistrate, approached the Sub Divisional Officer for obtaining an order for the detention of the constable in a lockup of the Court. The Court SubInspector was found to have disobeyed the order of the Magistrate and for that reason he was punished for contempt of Court. The Sub Divisional Officer was released on his tendering an unqualified apology. We are of the view that the case cited above would render no help to us because it was such a case in which the order which had already been passed for detention at a certain place had intentionally not been complied with.

Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon Abdul Razack Sahib v. Mr. Azizunnissa Cegum and others, AIR 1970 Madras 14, which lays down that for an act to amount to contempt of Court punishable under the summary jurisdiction of the High Court it must fall within the principle of those cases in which the power to punish has been decided to exist. There being no legal precedent for the punishment in such a cast which was arisen before us, we are of the view that before extending the frontiers of the offence of contempt of Court the matter should be considered by a larger Bench. Incidentally, the question will also be required to be determined whether the prisoners and the different officers were guilty of any such act which obstructed the administration of justice. Furthermore, the application of section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act will also be gone into because it lays down that no Court shall impose sentenceunder the Act for a content of Court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. The case is ordered to be placed before Hon''ble the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger Bench for the determination of the. important questions or law which have arisen in this case which we are reluctant to decide on account of their public importance.

Sd/ C.S. Tiwana,

Judge.

April 1, 1982.

Sd/ S.S. Dewan.

Judge.

Dated : 2411983.

S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. In view of what follows hereinafter it is wholly unnecessary to recount the facts afresh. Suffice it to mention that the proceedings against the five condemners were initiated by the Court on its own motion by the order of A.S. Bains, J. dated 13th January, 1982. Thereafter, the case first came up before a Division Bench consisting of my learned brothers C.S. Tiwana and S.S. Dewan, JJ. who vide their lucid order succinctly marshalled the facts as also the issues necessitating decision, in their reference of the Full Bench.

However, at the very threshold, the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that all the five contemners at the very initial stage whilst filing their return have tendered an unconditional apology and thrown, themselves on the mercy of this Court. This is borne out from the record by all the affidavits and the written statements filed on their behalf. The learned counsel for the respondents have reiterated their stand and, indeed, highlighted the sense of contrition unanimously expressed by all the respondents.

Apart from the above, are other factors which incline us to the course. we propose to adopt herein. It is the admitted. position that he occurrence from which the present proceedings arise took place way back in November, 1979. Protracted proceedings against Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 followed and hung over their heads like the sword of Damocles. The First Information Report against the aforesaid two respondents was lodged much later and it was during the course of the enquiry and trial of these two contemners that the present proceedings come to be initiated against them nearly a year ago.

Because of the very peculiar circumstances of the case and the contrition expressed on behalf of all the condemners we deemed the case to be a fit one for action under the proviso to section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The notices are discharged accordingly.

Sd/ S.S. Sandhawalia,

Chief Justice.

Sd. C.S. Tiwana,

Judge.

I agree.

Sd. S.S. Dewan,

Judge.

JUDGMENT accordingly.