http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 17

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 316 of 1998

PETITIONER:

Daroga Singh & Ors.

RESPONDENT:

B.K. Pandey

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/04/2004

BENCH:

R.C. Lahoti & Bhan.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

With

Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 1998, Criminal Appeal No.

318 of 1998, Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 1998 &

Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 1998

BHAN, J.

The instant criminal appeals arising from a common judgment relating

to the same incident, depict a rare, unfortunate and condemnable act of the

police officials who contrary to the duty enjoined upon them to protect and

maintain law and order, indulged in the act of attacking in a pre-planned and

calculated manner Shri D.N. Barai, Ist Additional District and Sessions

Judge, in his court room and Chambers on 18th November, 1997 at

Bhagalpur in the State of Bihar.

Facts of the present case:

In Sessions trial No. 592 of 1992, the Investigating Officer (Jokhu

Singh) was examined as a witness on 7th May, 1997 in the Court of Shri

D.N. Barai, Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur. As the

cross-examination could not be concluded the case was adjourned to 26th

May, 1997. Thereafter the case was adjourned to several dates but this

witness did not appear for the cross-examination. A show cause notice was

issued against Jokhu Singh through Superintendent of Police, Madhepura,

requiring him to appear on 11th June, 1997. In spite of that Jokhu Singh did

not appear. On 14th July, 1997, a wireless message was sent to him through

Superintendent of Police to appear in the court on 5th August, 1997. Once

again the witness did not turn up. The Court, therefore, having no other

option issued a notice to Jokhu Singh to show cause why proceedings under

the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') be not

initiated against him. Ultimately, on 27th August, 1997 the case was

adjourned to 20th September, 1997 and to procure his presence, non-bailable

warrant was issued. On this date also the witness did not turn up. He did

not file reply to the show cause notice either. On 17th November, 1997,

Jokhu Singh appeared in the court in the afternoon. Having regard to the

previous order of non-bailable warrant of arrest, he was remanded to

judicial custody. A petition for bail was filed on his behalf after the court

hours. It was directed that the same be placed for hearing on the next date.

Shri K.D. Choudhary, one of the appellants who was an office bearer

of the Policemen's Association at District Level and was posted as SHO of

the Police Station in the evening of the same day went to the Chambers of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 17

Shri Barai for release of Shri Jokhu Singh on execution of a personal bond.

Shri Barai did not agree. Thereafter he approached the District Magistrate

and on the basis of his advice he met the District Judge and renewed his

demand for release of Jokhu Singh, which was declined.

On 18th November, 1997, when the bail petition of Jokhu Singh was

taken up, the learned counsel appearing on his behalf made a prayer seeking

withdrawal of the bail application. Accordingly, the bail application was

dismissed as withdrawn. Soon thereater, a large number of police officers

(without uniform), armed with lathis and other weapons and shouting

slogans against Shri Barai, barged into his court room. The court peon Shri

Bishundeo Sharma who tried to shut the door was brutally assaulted. Shri

Barai apprehending danger to his life, rushed to his Chambers and managed

to bolt the door. Unruly mob forcibly broke open the door, overpowered the

bodyguard and assaulted Shri Barai. They reiterated their demand for

unconditional release of Jokhu Singh. Due to the manhandling Shri Barai

felt dizziness and became unconscious. It was due to timely arrival of a

team of doctors that his life was saved.

The police personnel after assaulting Shri Barai and his court staff,

took away certain records and damaged the doors and grills of the gate.

They also assaulted some of the lawyers and damaged their furniture and

motor vehicles parked inside the court compound. Since at the relevant time

the District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur had gone to Banka for holding

camp court and Shri Barai was not in a position to send any report, the 5th

Additional District & Sessions Judge sent a report to the High Court

narrating the incident. On the next day, on return from Banka, District &

Sessions Judge also enquired into the matter and submitted a detailed report.

In the report the names of police officials who were identified by the court

staff, Shri Barai and the lawyers were also disclosed. They are (i) A.

Natarajan, the then Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur (ii) Harihar Prasad

Choudhary, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, (iii) K.D.

Choudhary, the then Inspector of Police, Kotwali P.S., (iv) Ms. Shashi Lata

Singh, the then S.I., (v) Daroga singh, the then S.I. (vi) P.K. Singh, the then

S.I., (vii)Rajib Rajan Dayal alias Bhagat, the then S.I., (viii) Gurubachan

Singh, the then S.I., (ix) Krishna Ram, the then Inspector of Police, (x) C.D.

Jha, the then A.S.I., (xi) K.N. Singh, the then Officer Incharge of Harijan

P.S. Bhagalpur and (xii) Ranjit Pandey, the then Sergeant Major, Police

Line, Bhagalpur.

On 19th November, 1997, on the basis of the report sent by the 5th

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur dated 18th November,

1997, Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 1997 was registered

and placed before a Bench of the High Court for admission. Along with the

said case Civil Writ Petition C.W.J.C. No. 10625 of 1997 filed on behalf of

the Young Lawyers' Association was also listed. On perusal of the report

and after hearing the three Presidents of the High Court Associations and the

Advocate General, the Court arrived at the conclusion that a prima facie case

of criminal contempt was made out against the contemners. Accordingly

proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act were initiated and a direction

was issued to the Registry to issue notices to the above referred persons

along with a copy of the report, containing allegations against the concerned

persons, calling upon them to show cause as to why suitable action be not

taken against them for the alleged misconduct. The show cause was made

returnable by 25th November, 1997. The Chief Secretary and the Director

General of Police were directed to affirm on affidavits regarding the steps

taken by the State Government in the matter relating to the incident.

On 25th November, 1997, all the contemners appeared through their

respective advocates. On a request made the hearing was postponed to 10th

December, 1997 to enable them to file their detailed replies to the show

cause notice. Chief Secretary filed his affidavit indicating that the Director

General-cum-Inspector General of Police after holding a detailed inquiry,

had in his report, disclosed names of nine police officials namely (i) K.D.

Choudhary, the then Officer Incharge, Kotwali, (ii) Ranjit Pandey, the then

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 17

Sergeant Major, Bhagalpur, (iii) Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, the then S.I., (iv)

K.B. Singh, the then Thana Incharge, Harijan P.S. Bhagalpur, (v)

Gurubachan singh, the then S.I., (vi) Daroga Singh, the then S.I., (vii) Prem

Kumar Singh, the then S.I. (Officer Incharge Kajraili), (viii) Rajeev Ranjan

Bhagar, the then S.I., and (ix) C.D. Jha, the then ASI Bhagalpur.

The Director General of Police found the officers, named above,

guilty for the alleged incident and condemned the police officials for their

act. It was also mentioned in the affidavit that the State Government, acting

on the basis of the report of the Director General of Police, had issued

different orders, suspending all such officials from service. Keeping in view

the gravity of the situation, a Commission of Inquiry was also set up under

the provisions of the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952.

Besides the departmental proceedings, different criminal cases were

also lodged against them.

On behalf of some of the contemners a request was made to keep the

contempt matter in abeyance until the conclusion of the proceedings initiated

under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the departmental

proceedings and the report of the Commission constituted under the

Commission of Inquiry Act. The request was declined by the High Court. It

was held that the pendency of a criminal case or judicial inquiry could not

constitute a bar to the continuation of the contempt proceedings. But before

adjourning the proceedings to the next date and having noticed that all the

contemners and their advocates were present and every body was

condemning the occurrence, the Court expressed the desire that some of the

responsible officers like Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Inspector of Police Kotwali Shri K.D. Choudhary and Sub-Inspector

of Police Ms. Shashi Lata Singh and Sergeant Major of Police Line Ranjit

Pandey should disclose details of the occurrence which had taken place in

the court premises on 18th November, 1997 and if possible, identify more

names of such persons, who, according to them, had taken part at the time

of occurrence. On the adjourned date of hearing, the Court recorded the

statement of (i) A. Natarajan, the then S.P., (ii) Harihar Choudhary, the then

DSP, (iii) K.D. Choudhary, the then Inspector of Police, Kotwali P.S., (iv)

Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, the then S.I., and (v) Ranjit Pandey, the then Sergeat

Major, Bhagalpur. The Superintendent of Police in his statement fairly

narrated a part of the incident and identified certain more names, like

Awadhesh Singh, Subodh Kumar Yadav and Aswan, Vice-President of the

Association who, according to him, had also taken part in the alleged assault.

The court issued notices to these three persons also calling upon them to

show cause why they be also not proceeded for the criminal contempt. The

officials whose statements had been recorded were directed to file their

additional or supplementary replies to the show cause on the next date of

hearing.

On 10th December, 1997, all the contemners appeared and filed

additional or supplementary replies to show cause notice. The

Superintendent of Police in his supplementary reply disclosed names of 14

more police officials and constables, who, as per his inquiry, had also taken

part along with the main persons named earlier. They are (i) Ram suresh

Singh 'Nirala', SI, (ii) Sriram Singh, ASI, (iii) Ram Rekha Pandey, SI, (iv)

Shivji Singh, SI, (v) B.N. Singh, ASI, Kotwali, (vi) Sukh Narain Sharma, SI,

(vii) D.D. Singh Officer Incharge, Tatarpur P.S., (viii) Gopalji Prasad, SI,

(ix) Madhusudhan Sharma O/c Sultanganj P.S., (x) Awadesh Singh,

Constable, (xi) Subodh Kumar Yadav, Constable, (xii) Ram Prakash

Paswan, Constable, (xiii) Dilip Ojha, Treasure, Policemen's Association,

Bhagalpur, and (xiv) Anil Kumar Soren, General Secretary, Policemen's

Association.

Notices were issued to the above-named persons as well along with

copies of the report calling upon them to show cause by 8th January, 1998 as

to why they be also not proceeded with the criminal contempt. On 9th

January, 1998 all the contemners including those fourteen against whom

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 17

notices were issued on 10th December, 1997 appeared and filed their replies

to the show cause notice.

At the same time, affidavits were also filed on behalf of Shri Barai,

Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur and his staff namely R.

Das and B.Sharma and some of the lawyers of the Bhagalpur Court namely

Shri M.P.Singh, President Bar Association, Bhagalpur, Shri Y.K. Rai,

Secretary, Advocate Assiciation and S/Shri N.K. Choudhary, J.K.,Gupta

(Secretary, Bar Association), B.N. Mishra and S.C.Pandey, Advocates.

Copies of the affidavits filed were served on their opposites on 16th January,

1998 all the learned advocates appearing for different parties fairly accepted

that copies of all the material brought on the record so far was properly

served on the advocates appearing for the contemners and those who were

appearing in support of the contempt proceedings.

In response to the show cause all the contemners in their affidavits

condemned the incident of assault on Shri Barai and the lawlessness created

in the civil court campus, Bhagalpur. It would be relevant to notice that

some of the contemners like Harihar Choudhary, DSP, K.D. Choudhary,

Inspector of Police and few others have tried to justify the act by saying that

there was a resentment amongst the police personnels for the arrest of Jokhu

Singh and removal of stars from his uniform in the court. The reply of the

Superintendent of Police also indicated that because of such steps taken by

Shri Barai the Police Officers Association led by Shri K.D. Choudhary on

17th December, 1997 met the Inspector General (Prosecution) and the Zonal

I.G. and protested against the arrest of Jokhu Singh and the removal of stars.

After showing their resentment these contemners also criticised the

unfortunate incident and assault on Shri Barai, and his staff but they denied

their presence at the time of incident in the court premises on 18th

November, 1997. Show cause notice had been issued to 26 persons. Except

for one or two the remaining asserted that they were not involved in the

incident and were on duty elsewhere at the relevant time. In proof of such

defence they attached their duty chart etc.

After considering the relevant evidence on the record, and after taking

due care and caution to see that innocent persons are not punished the High

Court dropped the proceedings against the contemners other than Shri K.D.

Choudhary, Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, Daroga Singh, P.K. Singh, Rajib Ranjan

Bhagat (Dayal), Gurubachan Singh, C.D. Jha, K.N. Singh and Ranjit

Pandey. Shri K.D. Choudhary was found to be the ring leader of the

contemners and was imposed with the punishment of undergoing simple

imprisonment for a period of three months and the remaining eight to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. It was made clear

that the discharge of rule of contempt notice of the proceedings against the

other seventeen would not absolve them of their misconduct and guilt for

their respective offences, if any. In other words, the departmental

proceedings initiated by the State Government and the criminal cases

registered against them would not be affected by the disposal of the

proceedings in the criminal contempt.

Learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, has fairly stated that

neither the departmental proceedings nor the criminal cases nor the

Commission of Inquiry have been concluded so far. The plea taken is that

they are awaiting the result of the present appeals.

Appellants who were convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act and

visited with the punishment of simple imprisonment have filed five different

appeals. S/Shri Daroga Singh, Chakradhar Jha, Shashi Lata Singh and P.K.

Singh have filed Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1998, Shri K.D. Choudhary

has filed Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 1998, Shri Kedar Nath Singh has filed

Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 1998, Shri Ranjeet Pandey has filed Criminal

Appeal No. 317 of 1998 and Shri Gurbachan Singh and Rajib Ranjan Dayal

have filed Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 1998. Daroga Singh, P.K. Singh,

C.D. Jha have already retired from service. The remaining are still in

service and posted at different places.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 17

Learned counsels appearing for the appellants in different appeals,

apart from the merits in individual appeals, which we shall deal with later,

have raised some common points challenging the correctness of the

impugned judgment. The same are:

(i) the alleged contempt is that of a court subordinate to the High

Court and the allegations made constitute an offence under

Section 228 IPC, and therefore the jurisdiction of the High

Court to take cognizance of such a case is expressly barred

under proviso to Section 10 of the Act;

(ii) that the High Court cannot take suo motu notice of the

contempt of a court subordinate to it. The procedure given in

the High Court Rules and Orders for initiation of proceedings

for contempt of subordinate court having not been followed the

entire proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed;

(iii) the standard of proof required in the criminal contempt is the

same as in a criminal charge and therefore the charge of

criminal contempt has to be proved by holding a trial as in a

criminal case. The appellants could not be convicted on the

basis of evidence by way of affidavits only. The witnesses

should have been examined in Court and in any case the

appellants should have been given an opportunity to cross-

examine the persons who had deposed against them on

affidavits to verify the version of the incident as according to

them there were conflicting versions of the incident;

(iv) reasonable and adequate opportunity was not afforded to the

appellants either to defend themselves or put forward their case;

and

(v) affidavits of independent witnesses which were on record have

not been dealt with by the High Court.

Answer to the first point would depend upon the interpretation to be

put on Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 which deals with the power of the

High Court to punish for the contempt of subordinate courts reads:

"10. Power of High Court to punish contempts

of subordinate courts.- Every High Court shall

have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers

and authority, in accordance with the same

procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of

courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in

respect of contempts of itself:

Provided that no High Court shall take

cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been

committed in respect of a court subordinate to it

where such contempt is an offence punishable

under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."

According to the learned counsels appearing for the appellants the

proviso to Section 10 means that if the act by which a party is alleged to

have committed contempt of a subordinate court constitutes offence of any

description whatsoever punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the High

Court is precluded from taking cognizance of it. According to them in the

present case the allegations made amounts to an offence under Section 228

of the Indian Penal Code and consequently the jurisdiction of the High Court

is barred.

We do not find any force in this submission. The point raised is

concluded against the appellants by a judgment of the Constitution Bench of

this Court in Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. The State of Madras,

1952 SCR 425. In that case, sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1926 which is similar to proviso to Section 10 of the Act was

under consideration. Section 2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926

provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 17

have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such

contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Interpreting

this Section, it was held that sub-section (3) excluded the jurisdiction of the

High Court to take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been

committed in respect of a court subordinate to it only in cases where the acts

alleged to constitute contempt are punishable as contempt under specific

provisions of the Indian Penal Code, but not where these acts merely amount

to offences of other description for which punishment has been provided in

the Indian Penal Code.

This judgment was analyzed and followed by a Bench of three Judges

of this Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Revashankar, 1959 SCR

1367. In this case as well the point arose regarding the interpretation to be

put to a similar provision and it was held:

"The sub-section was considered in two decisions

of this Court, Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. The

State of Madras ([1952] S.C.R. 425) and Brahma

Prakash Sharma v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

([1953] S.C.R. 1169). In the earlier case of

Ramakrishna Reddy ([1952] S.C.R. 425) the

appellant was the publisher and managing editor

of a Telugu Weekly known as "Praja Rajyam". In

an issue of the said paper dated February 10,

1949, an article appeared which contained

defamatory statements about the stationary Sub-

Magistrate, Kovvur, and the point for

consideration was if the jurisdiction of the High

Court to take cognisance of such a case was

expressly barred under section 2(3) of the earlier

Contempt of Courts Act, when the allegations

made in the article in question constituted an

offence under section 499, Indian Penal Code. On

behalf of the appellant it was argued that what the

sub-section meant was that if the act by which the

party was alleged to have committed contempt of

a subordinate court constituted offence of any

description whatsoever punishable under the

Indian Penal Code, the High Court was precluded

from taking cognizance of it. This argument was

repelled and this Court said (at page 429) :-

"In our opinion, the sub-section referred to

above excludes the jurisdiction of High

Court only in cases where the acts alleged to

constitute contempt of a subordinate court

are punishable as contempt under specific

provisions of the Indian Penal Code but not

where these acts merely amount to offences

of other description for which punishment

has been provided for in the Indian Penal

Code. This would be clear from the

language of the sub-section which uses the

words "where such contempt is an offence"

and does not say "where the act alleged to

constitute such contempt is an offence."

On an examination of the decisions of several High

Courts in India it was laid down that the High

Court had the right to protect subordinate courts

against contempt but subject to this restriction, that

cases of contempt which have already been

provided for in the Indian Penal Code should not

be taken cognizance of by the High Court. This, it

was stated, was the principle underlying section

2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. This

Court then observed that it was not necessary to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 17

determine exhaustively what were the cases of

contempt which had been already provided for in

the Indian Penal Code; it was pointed out,

however, that some light was thrown on the matter

by the provision of section 480 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure which empowers any civil,

criminal or revenue court to punish summarily a

person who is found guilty of committing any

offence under sections 175, 178, 179, 180 or

section 228 of the Indian Penal Code in the view or

presence of the court. The later decision of Brahma

Prakash Sharma ([1953] S.C.R. 1169) explained

the true object of contempt proceedings.

Mukherjea J. who delivered the judgment of the

Court said (at page 1176) :

"It would be only repeating what has been

said so often by various Judges that the

object of contempt proceedings is not to

afford protection to Judges personally from

imputations to which they may be exposed

as individuals; it is intended to be a

protection to the public whose interests

would be very much affected if by the act or

conduct of any party, the authority of the

court is lowered and the sense of confidence

which people have in the administration of

justice by it is weakened."

It was also pointed out that there were innumerable

ways by which attempts could be made to hinder

or obstruct the due administration of justice in

courts and one type of such interference was found

in cases where there was an act which amounted to

"scandalising the court itself" : this scandalising

might manifest itself in various ways but in

substance it was an attack on individual Judges or

the court as a whole with or without reference to

particular cases, causing unwarranted and

defamatory aspersions upon the character and

ability of the Judges. Such conduct is punished as

contempt for the reason that it tends to create

distrust in the popular mind and impair the

confidence of the people in the courts which are of

prime importance to the litigants in the protection

of their rights and liberties."

These two judgments have been followed recently in Arun Paswan,

S.I. vs. State of Bihar & Others [2003 (10) SCALE 658]. We

respectfully agree with the reasoning and the conclusions arrived at in these

cases.

"Criminal contempt" is defined in Section 2 (c) of the Act, to mean:

"(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication

(whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs,

or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any

matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever

which -

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or

lowers or tends to lower the authority

of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to

interfere with, the due course of any

judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 17

or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the

administration of justice in any other

manner;"

Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code provides:

"228. Intentional insult or interruption to

public servant sitting in judicial proceeding.-

Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes

any interruption to any public servant, while such

public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial

proceeding, shall be punished with simple

imprisonment for a term which may extend to six

months, or with fine which may extend to one

thousand rupees, or with both."

What is made publishable under Section 228, IPC is the offence of

intentional insult to a Judge or interruption of court proceedings but not as a

contempt of Court. The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to

include any act by a person which would either scandalize the court or which

would tend to interfere with the administration of justice. It would also

include any act which lowers the authority of the Court or prejudices or

interferes with the due course of any judicial proceedings. It is not limited

to the offering of intentional insult to the Judge or interruption of the judicial

proceedings. This Court observed in Delhi Judicial Service Association

Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. , 1991 (4) SCC 406:

"...The public have a vital stake in effective and

orderly administration of justice. The Court has

the duty of protecting the interest of the

community in the due administration of justice

and, so, it is entrusted with the power to commit

for contempt of court, not to protect the dignity of

the Court against insult or injury, but, to protect

and vindicate the right of the public so that the

administration of justice is not perverted,

prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. The

power to punish for contempt is thus for the

protection of public justice, whose interest requires

that decency and decorum is preserved in Courts of

Justice. Those who have to discharge duty in a

Court of Justice are protected by the law, and

shielded in the discharge of their duties. Any

deliberate interference with the discharge of such

duties either in court or outside the court by

attacking the presiding officers of the court, would

amount to criminal contempt and the courts must

take serious cognizance of such conduct."

In the present case, a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge was

attacked in a pre-planned and calculated manner in his court room and when

he tried to protect himself from physical harm by retiring to his chambers,

by chasing him there and causing injuries to him. The raising of slogans and

demanding unconditional bail for Jokhu Singh further compounded the

offence. The Courts cannot be compelled to give "command orders". The

act committed amounts to deliberate interference with the discharge of duty

of a judicial officer by intimidation apart from scandalizing and lowering the

dignity of the Court and interference with the administration of justice.The

effect of such an act is not confined to a particular court or a district, or the

State, it has the tendency to effect the entire judiciary in the country. It is a

dangerous trend. Such a trend has to be curbed. If for passing judicial

orders to the annoyance of the police the presiding officers of the Courts are

to be assaulted and humiliated the judicial system in the country would

collapse.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 17

The second contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the

High Court cannot on its own motion take action of a criminal contempt of a

subordinate court. According to the learned counsels the High Court can

take cognizance of a criminal contempt under Section 15 (2) of the Act of a

subordinate court only on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or

on a motion made by the Advocate General. Since the procedure as laid

down in the High Court Rules and Orders had not been followed the very

initiation of proceedings for contempt was vitiated and therefore liable to be

quashed. We do not find any force in this submission as well. This point

also stands concluded against the appellants by a decision of this Court in

S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, Vs. Vinay

Chandra Misra, [1981 (1) SCC 436]. In this case an advocate filed a

petition before the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act alleging

that the appellant therein as a Member of Revenue Board made certain

contemptuous remarks, viz., nalayak gadhe saale ko jail bhijwa dunga;

kis idiot ne advocate bana diya hai and acted in a manner which amounted

to criminal contempt of the Court of Revenue Board, in which he (the

advocate) was the counsel for one of the parties. The advocate requested the

High Court to take suo motu action under the Contempt of Court Act against

the member of the Revenue Board or pass such orders as it deemed fit. The

question for determination was whether the High Court was competent to

take cognizance of contempt of a subordinate court when it was moved by a

private petitioner and not in accordance with either of the two motions

mentioned in Section 15 (2). Analyzing Section 15 (2) of the Act and in

reading it in harmony with Section 10 of the Act it was held:

"16. Section 2(c) of the Act defines "criminal

contempt". Section 9 emphasizes that "nothing

contained in this Act shall be construed as

implying that any disobedience, breach,

publication or other act is punishable as contempt

of court which would not be so punishable apart

from this Act". Section 10 runs as under :

Every High Court shall have and exercise

the same jurisdiction, powers and authority,

in accordance with the same procedure and

practice, in respect of contempts of courts

subordinate to it as it has and exercises in

respect of contempts of itself :

Then, there is a proviso which is not material for

our purpose. The provision in Section 10 is but a

replica of Section 3 of the 1952 Act. The phrase

"courts subordinate to it" used in Section 10 is

wide enough to include all courts which are

judicially subordinate to the High Court, even

though administrative control over them under

Article 235 of the Constitution does not vest in the

High Court. Under Article 227 of the Constitution

the High Court has the power of superintendence

over all courts and tribunals throughout the

territories in relation to which it exercises

jurisdiction. The Court of Revenue Board,

therefore, in the instant case, is a court

"subordinate to the High Court" within the

contemplation of Section 10 of the Act.

17. Section 14 provides for the procedure where

contempts is committed in the face of the Supreme

Court or a High Court. Section 15 is very material

for our purpose. It provides in regard to

cognizance of "criminal contempt" in cases other

than those falling under Section 14. The material

portion of Section 15 reads thus :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 17

15. (1) In the case of a criminal contempt,

other than a contempt referred to in Section

14, the Supreme Court or the High Court

may take action on its own motion or on a

motion made by -

(a) the Advocate General, or

(b) any other person, with the consent in

writing of the Advocate General.

(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a

subordinate court, the High Court may take

action on a reference made to it by the

subordinate court or on a motion made by

the Advocate General or, in relation to a

union territory, by such law officer as the

Central Government may, by notification in

the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf ...

The operation of sub-section (1) appears to

be confined to cases of "criminal contempt"

of the Supreme Court or the High Court,

itself. Criminal contempt of a subordinate

court is dealt with in sub-section (2).

18. A comparison between the two sub-sections

would show that whereas in sub-section (1) one of

the three alternative modes for taking cognizance,

mentioned is "on its own motion", no such mode is

expressly provided in sub-section (2). The only

two modes of taking cognizance by the High Court

mentioned in sub-section (2) are : (i) on a

reference made to it by a subordinate court; or (ii)

on a motion made by the Advocate General, or in

relation to a union territory by the notified Law

Officer. Does the omission in Section 15(2) of the

mode of taking suo motu cognizance indicate a

legislative intention to debar the High Court from

taking congnizance in that mode of any criminal

contempt of a subordinate court ? If this question

is answered in the affirmative, then, such a

construction of sub-section (2) will be inconsistent

with Section 10 which makes the powers of the

High court to punish for contempt of a subordinate

court, coextensive and congruent with its power to

punish for its own contempt not only in regard to

quantum or prerequisites for punishment, but also

in the matter of procedure and practice. Such a

construction which will bring Section 15(2) in

conflict with Section 10, has to be avoided, and the

other interpretation which will be in harmony with

Section 10 is to be accepted. Harmoniously

construed, sub-section (2) of Section 15 does not

deprive the High Court of the power of taking

cognizance of criminal contempt of a subordinate

court, on its own motion, also. If the intention of

the legislature was to take away the power of the

High Court to take suo motu cognizance of such

contempt, there was no difficulty in saying so in

unequivocal language, or by wording the sub-

section in a negative form. We have, therefore, no

hesitation in holding in agreement with the High

Court, that sub-section (2) of Section 15, properly

construed, does not restrict the power of the High

Court to take cognizance of and punish contempt

of a subordinate court, on its own motion."

[Emphasis supplied]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 17

We respectfully agree with the view taken in this judgment and hold

that the High Court could initiate proceedings on its own motion under the

Contempt of Courts Act against the appellants. On the facts of this case

apart from the report sent by the 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge of

the incident, Young Lawyers Association had also filed a writ petition. The

Presidents of the three Bar Associations and the Advocate General were

present and heard before initiating the proceedings for the criminal

contempt. It has been noted by the High Court that "all the three Presidents

of the High Court Associations and the Advocate General arrived at the

conclusion that a prima facie case of criminal contempt was made out

against the contemners". This shows that the Advocate General of the State

was also of the opinion that prima facie a case for initiation of proceedings

for criminal contempt was made out and he was a consenting party to the

initiation of the proceedings.

The third contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is

that the standard of proof required in the criminal contempt is the same as in

a criminal charge and therefore the charge of criminal contempt has to be

proved beyond reasonable doubt. That the appellants could not be convicted

on the basis of the affidavits filed. That the witnesses should have been

examined in Court and in any case the appellants should have been given an

opportunity to cross-examine the persons who had deposed against them on

affidavits to verify the version of the incident as according to them there

were conflicting versions of the incident. It was emphasized that justice

must not only be done, but must be seen to be done by all concerned to

establish confidence that the contemners will receive a fair, just and

impartial trial. We do not find any substance in this submission as well.

High Court in its order has noted that the learned counsels appearing for

both the parties have taken a stand that all possible fair and proper

opportunities were extended to them. In view of the statements made by the

counsels for the parties it will not be open to the counsels for the parties at

this stage to take the stand that in the absence of cross-examination of the

concerned persons, reliance could not be placed on the statements which

were made on oath. Learned counsel who had appeared for the contemners

before the High Court did not claim the right of cross-examination. Only at

the stage of arguments a submission was made that opportunity to cross-

examine the concerned persons was not given which vitiated the trial. High

Court rejected this contention by holding that such a stand could not be

taken at that stage of the proceedings. It has been held in Arun Paswan

case (supra) that a party which fails to avail of the opportunity to cross-

examine at the appropriate stage is precluded from taking the plea of non-

observance of principles of natural justice at a later stage. Such a plea would

not be tenable.

It has repeatedly been held by this Court (Ref: 1995 (2) SCC 584) that

the procedure prescribed either under the Code of Criminal Procedure or

under the Evidence Act is not attracted to the proceedings initiated under

Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The High Court can deal with

such matters summarily and adopt its own procedure. The only caution that

has to be observed by the Court in exercising this inherent power of

summary procedure is that the procedure followed must be fair and the

contemners are made aware of the charges levelled against them and given a

fair and reasonable opportunity. Having regard to the fact that contempt

proceedings are to be decided expeditiously in a summary manner the

convictions have been recorded without extending the opportunity to the

contemners to cross examine those who had deposed against them on

affidavits. Though the procedure adopted in this case was summary but

adequate safeguards were taken to protect the contemners' interest. The

contemners were issued notices apprising them of the specific allegations

made against them. They were given an opportunity to counter the

allegations by filing their counter affidavits and additional

counter/supplementary affidavits as per their request. They were also given

opportunity to file affidavits of any other persons which they did. They

were given opportunities to produce any other material in their defence

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 17

which they did not do. Most of the contemners had taken the plea that at the

relevant time they were on duty in their respective Police Stations though in

the same town. They also attached copies of station diaries and duty chart in

support of their alibi. The High Court did not accept the plea of alibi as all

these papers had been prepared by the contemners themselves and none of

the superior officer had supported such a plea. The evidence produced by

the respondents was rejected in the face of the reports made by the

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Director General of Police coupled

with affidavits of Mr. Barasi, the Additional District and Sessions Judge,

two court's officials and affidavits of some of the lawyers who had

witnessed the occurrence.

The contempt proceedings have to be decided in a summary manner.

The Judge has to remain in full control of the hearing of the case and

immediate action is required to be taken to make it effective and deterrent.

Immediate steps are required to be taken to restore order as early and

quickly as possible. Dragging the proceedings unnecessarily would impede

the speed and efficiency with which justice has to be administered. This

Court while considering all these aspects held in In re: Vinay Chandra

Mishra (the alleged contemner), 1995 (2) SCC 584, that the criminal

contempt no doubt amounts to an offence but it is an offence sui generis and

hence for such offence, the procedure adopted both under the common law

and the statute law in the country has always been summary. It was

observed that the need was for taking speedy action and to put the Judge in

full control of the hearing. It was emphasised that immediate steps were

required to be taken to restore order in the court proceedings as quickly as

possible. To quote from the above-referred to case

"However, the fact that the process is summary

does not mean that the procedural requirement,

viz., that an opportunity of meeting the charge, is

denied to the contemner. The degree of precision

with which the charge may be stated depends upon

the circumstances. So long as the gist of the

specific allegations is made clear or otherwise the

contemner is aware of the specific allegation, it is

not always necessary to formulate the charge in a

specific allegation. The consensus of opinion

among the judiciary and the jurists alike is that

despite the objection that the Judge deals with the

contempt himself and the contemner has little

opportunity to defend himself, there is a residue of

cases where not only it is justifiable to punish on

the spot but it is the only realistic way of dealing

with certain offenders. This procedure does not

offend against the principle of natural justice, viz.,

nemo judex in sua causa since the prosecution is

not aimed at protecting the Judge personally but

protecting the administration of justice. The threat

of immediate punishment is the most effective

deterrent against misconduct. The Judge has to

remain in full control of the hearing of the case and

he must be able to take steps to restore order as

early and quickly as possible. The time factor is

crucial. Dragging out the contempt proceedings

means a lengthy interruption to the main

proceedings which paralyses the court for a time

and indirectly impedes the speed and efficiency

with which justice is administered. Instant justice

can never be completely satisfactory yet it does

provide the simplest, most effective and least

unsatisfactory method of dealing with disruptive

conduct in court. So long as the contemner's

interests are adequately safeguarded by giving him

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 17

an opportunity of being heard in his defence, even

summary procedure in the case of contempt in the

face of the court is commended and not faulted."

In the present case the High Court had decided to proceed with the

contempt proceedings in a summary manner. Due opportunity was afforded

to all the contemners and after verifying and cross checking the material

available before it, coming from different reliable sources the High Court

convicted only nine persons out of twenty six persons arrayed as contemners

before it. The High Court took due care to ascertain the identity of the

contemners by cross-checking with the affidavits filed by the different

persons. It is also based on the independent reports submitted by the

Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police. We do not find

any fault in the procedure adopted by the High Court in conducting the

proceedings in the present case. For the survival of the rule of law the

orders of the courts have to be obeyed and continue to be obeyed unless

overturned, modified or stayed by the appellate or revisional courts. The

court does not have any agency of its own to enforce its orders. The

executive authority of the State has to come to the aid of the party seeking

implementation of the court orders. The might of the State must stand

behind the Court orders for the survival of the rule of the court in the

country. Incidents which undermine the dignity of the courts should be

condemned and dealt with swiftly. When a judge is attacked and assaulted

in his court room and chambers by persons on whose shoulders lay the

obligation of maintaining law and order and protecting the citizen against

any unlawful act needs to be condemned in the severest of terms. If

judiciary has to perform its duties and functions in a fair and free manner,

the dignity and the authority of the courts has to be respected and maintained

at all stages and by all concerned failing which the very constitutional

scheme and public faith in the judiciary runs the risk of being lost.

It was urged with some vehemence that principles of natural justice

were not observed in as much as opportunity to cross examine the witnesses

who had deposed on affidavits is concerned it may be stated that no such

opportunity was asked for in the High Court at trial stage. It was for them to

ask for such an opportunity to cross examine the parties who had deposed

against them on affidavit. Since the contemners did not avail of the

opportunity at the trial stage the plea of non-observations of principles of

natural justice is not tenable. Appellants were made aware of the procedure

which was adopted by the High Court. They were given full opportunity to

put forth their point of view. Each of them filed detailed affidavits along

with evidence in support thereof. They had attached their duty charts

showing that they could not have been present at the place of occurrence as

they were on duty somewhere else. High Court has considered and

discussed the entire evidence present on the record before recording the

conviction. The contention that the affidavits of independent witnesses were

not considered cannot be accepted. Only those were convicted against

whom corroboration of the fact of their presence and participation in the

incident was confirmed from more than one source.

Plea that reasonable and adequate opportunity was not afforded to the

appellants is equally untenable. We find from the record that all the material

(affidavits, show cause notice etc.) which were brought on record was

properly served on the learned advocates appearing for the contemners. The

reports submitted by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, District Judge

affidavit of Shri Barai and his staff, namely, R. Dass and B. Sharma and the

other affidavits of the advocates who had seen the occurrence and the reports

submitted by the Director General of Police and the Superintendent of Police

were given to the learned advocates who were appearing in the contemners

in the High Court. Statements of A. Natarajan, the then S.P., Harihar

Chaudhary, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ranjeet Pandey, the

then Sergeant Major and Shashilata Singh, the then S.I. were recorded by the

High Court in the presence of all the lawyers. The Registry of the High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 17

Court was directed to keep their statements in a sealed cover. The

contemners were permitted to file affidavits and produced any other material

in support of the same. They were also permitted to file affidavits of any

other person supporting their version. They were all taken on record. After

affording due opportunity of hearing to the counsels appearing for the

contemners the High Court recorded the order of conviction. Thus the

appellants were given the evidence which had come on the record. They

were given an opportunity to controvert the allegations made against them

and produce evidence in support thereof. Counsel appearing for the

contemners were satisfied with the opportunity provided to them by the High

Court. Plea that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the contemners

was not raised before the High Court. We are of the opinion that due

reasonable and adequate opportunity was afforded to the appellants to

defend themselves and put forth their point of view.

The High Court has taken into consideration the entire evidence and

material available on the record including the evidence produced by the

contemners. It was not necessary for the High Court to discuss each and

every affidavit individually. Out of 26 persons named only 9 have been

convicted by the High Court. Since the procedure adopted was summary the

High Court has taken care not to convict a person unless direct evidence

and/or circumstances with sufficient corroborative material doubtless

fastening guilt on the contemners who have been punished was available.

The High Court found only those contemners guilty against whom the

element of doubt was completely eliminated. Affidavit evidence if based on

hearsay has been excluded. Contemners against whom there was single

identification were also given the benefit of doubt. The version put forth by

the appellants was not accepted as it fell short of proof. High Court has

considered the entire evidence on the record while recording a finding of

guilt against the appellants. Thus the plea that the High Court did not take

into consideration the affidavits of independent witnesses is not tenable.

Learned counsel for the appellants tried to point out that the appellants

were not present at the scene of incident as the appellants were on duty

elsewhere. He made reference to their duty charts which had been placed on

record. We find that the presence of S/Shri K.D. Choudhary, Ranjit Pandey,

Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, K.B. Singh, Gurubachan Singh, Daroga Singh,

Prem Kumar Singh, Rajeev Ranjan Bhagar and C.D.Jha, appellants herein

has been confirmed by several persons. The plea of ali bi taken by the

appellants has been negatived by the High Court as the duty charts had been

prepared by these officers themselves. None of the superior officers

supported their versions. Presence of most of the appellants had been

confirmed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Barai, the other two

Court officials, advocates, the reports of Director General of Police and the

Superintendent of Police. None of these has any interest in falsely

implicating any of the appellants.

It is unfortunate that neither the criminal proceedings nor the

disciplinary proceedings or the inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act

have been concluded. No doubt the appellants had been suspended initially

but in due course they have been reinstated. Some of them have retired as

well. Inaction on the part of the authorities resulted in emboldening others

to commit similar acts. In Arun Paswan (supra), proceedings for criminal

contempt were initiated against the appellant therein pursuant to the

complaint lodged by the District & Sessions Judge, Sasaram addressed to the

Registrar General of the High Court of Patna. In the report it was stated,

inter alia, that S.I. Arun Paswan (contemner) was directed to produce the

case diary in case No. 2000/2001 under Sections 302 and 201/34 I.P.C. As

the investigation officer did not appear in the case on the date fixed the

District & Sessions Judge issued notice requesting the investigation officer

to appear personally to show cause as why he should not be prosecuted

under Section 349 Criminal Procedure Code. The investigation officer

produced the case diary and replied to the show cause notice. The court was

not satisfied with the cause shown for absence and rejected the explanation.

Contemnor was directed to remain present in the court till the rising of the

court at 4.30 P.M.. A group of persons in plain clothes as also in police

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 17

uniforms came on the road in front of the court room of the District &

Sessions Judge and started raising the abusive slogans against the District &

Sessions Judge. One of the slogans raised was "District Judge Murdabad,

Bhagalpur Dohrana Hai". Proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act

were initiated. They were convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act and

their conviction was upheld by this Court. What is being emphasised is that

had timely action been taken by the authorities and the criminal proceedings

concluded in time, incident, as referred to above, where slogans were raised

"District Judge Murdabad, Bhagalpur Dohrana Hai" could have been

avoided.

The incident with which we are dealing with took place on 18th

November 1997. The incident which has been dealt with in the case of

Arun Paswan, S.I. (supra) is dated 20th January, 2002. Both the incidents

have taken place in the State of Bihar, one in Bhagalpur and the other in

Sasaram. The manner in which the police personnel belonging to middle

level of police administration and entrusted with such responsibilities as

require theirs coming into contact with public day to day persuades us to

make observation that there is something basically wrong with the police in

Bihar. Misconduct amounting to gross violation of discipline committed not

by a single individual but by so many collectively and that too by those who

have formed an association consisting of members of a disciplined force in

uniform was not promptly and sternly dealt with by the State or its senior

officials so as to take care to see that such incident, even if happened,

remains solitary incident. Faced with the initiation of contempt proceedings,

the persons proceeded against did not have the courtesy of admitting their

guilt and tendering an apology which if done could have been dealt with

mercy. They decided to contest, of course the justice administration system

allows them the liberty of doing so ____ and they had every right of doing so

____ but at the end it has been found that their pleas were false and their

denial of charges was aimed at prolonging the hearing as much as they

could. We are shocked to learn that the criminal courts seized of trial of the

accused persons on substantive charges for offences under the penal law of

the land are awaiting the decision of this appeal? Why for? Neither the

High Court nor this Court has ever directed the proceedings before the

criminal Courts to remain stayed. The criminal Court shall have to decide

on the charges framed against the accused persons on the basis of the

evidence adduced in those cases and not on the basis of this judgment.

Though we have found no merit in any of the pleas raised on behalf of

the appellants and we have formed an opinion without hesitation that the

appeals are to be dismissed, this is a case the facts whereof persuade us to

place on record certain observations of ours.

In the constitutional scheme the judiciary is entrusted with the task of

upholding the Constitution and the laws. Apart from interpreting the

Constitution and the laws, the judiciary discharges the function of securing

maintenance of law and order by deciding the disputes in a manner

acceptable to civilised and peace loving society. In order to maintain the

faith of the society in the rule of law the role of the judiciary cannot be

undermined. In a number of cases this Court has observed that foundation of

the judiciary is the trust and confidence of the people of the nation and when

such foundation or trust is rudely shaken by means of any disrespect by the

very persons who are required to enforce the orders of the court and

maintain law and order the people's perception of efficacy of the systems

gets eroded.

The Judges are ___ as a jurist calls ___ 'paper tigers'. They do not have

any machinery of their own for implementing their orders. People, while

approaching the Court of law which they regard as temple of justice, feel

safe and secure whilst they are in the Court. The police personnel is

deployed in the Court campus for the purpose of maintaining order and to

see that not only the Judges can work fearlessly in a calm, cool and serene

atmosphere but also to see that anyone coming to the Court too feels safe

and secure thereat. Every participant in court proceedings is either a seeker

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 17

of justice or one who comes to assist in administration of justice. So is the

expectation of the members of the Bar who are treated as officers of the

Court. We shudder to feel what would happen if the police personnel itself,

and that too in an organised manner, is found to be responsible for disturbing

the peace and order in the Court campus, for causing assault on the Judges

and thus sullying the temple of justice apart from bringing a bad name to an

indispensable organ of the executive wing of the State.

Police is the executive force of the State to which is entrusted the duty

of maintaining law and order and of enforcing regulations for the prevention

and detection of crime. (Encyclopaedia Britanica, Vol.58, p.158). The

police force is considered by the society as an organised force of civil

officers under the command of the State engaged in the preservation of law

and order in the society and maintaining peace by enforcement of laws and

prevention and detection of crime. One who is entrusted with the task of

maintaining discipline in the society must first itself be disciplined. Police is

an agency to which social control belongs and therefore the police has to

come up to the expectations of the society.

We have not been able to forget the policing role of the police of

British Raj wherein an attitude of hostility between the police and the

policed under the colonial rule was understandable. It is unfortunate that in

one of the largest constitutional democracies of the world the police has not

been able to change its that trait of hostility.

Long back Sardar Patel had said, after achieving independence, ____

"the police have inherited a legacy of suspicion and dislike. For this reason,

there is insufficient respect for the police today. But, now that the country is

free, both the public and the police must change their attitude." Shri S.V.M.

Tripathi, former Director General of Police has, in his evaluation 'Indian

Police After Fifty Years of Independence', said ____ "A sensitive police

officer can ensure justice and fair-play as no other public servant can. The

least he should do is to prevent injustices on the poor in the society and

other areas of administration, specially a police station. Upholding human

rights, and protection of life and property of citizens should be a matter of

habit with the police rather than that of display. The sooner we accept this

premise as imperative and honestly work towards achieving it, the better it

would be for the society and the nation. The police leadership will have to

push the limits of feasibility for this purpose." (The Indian Police Journal -

Vol.XLV - Nos.1 & 2, at p.5). Citizens of democratic India expect the

police as humane and efficient, professional and disciplined. It must be

remembered that the task entrusted to police is onerous and the police cannot

succeed in fulfilling their functions without people's cooperation and public

approval. Professor R. Deb, a scholar in Indian Police Service said - "If law

represents the collective conscience of Society, the Policeman, its principal

law enforcing agent ought to be the staunchest protagonist, defender and

keeper of that conscience." (Police and Law Enforcement, published by S.C.

Sarkar & Sons in 1988, p.1). He quotes Shri B.N. Mallick ___ an eminent

policeman of his times, as saying, that a modern policeman ought to be an

ideal citizen from every point of view. "He must be on the side of good

everywhere, and at all times. But to do good the policeman must himself be

good. To be able to induce others to obey the laws of society, he must obey

them first. With his example set before them, people will flock to his banner

not only to seek his help and protection but also to assist him in his noble

task. He must be the leader amongst men. This leadership he must earn by

his integrity, kindness, character, steadfastness, dignity, ability and self-

sacrifice. He must always set the right example". Professor R.Deb's

description of an ideal police is ___ "He should never forget that, like every

other citizen he too is subject to the Rule of Law, and is legally responsible

for his actions in carrying out his duties, for he who enforces law must live

by the law. In discharging his onerous duties and responsibilities under the

law the policeman must eschew all temptations to have recourse to short-

cuts and extra-legal methods. He must also be absolutely honest, impartial

and fair even to the worst legal transgressor. In fine he must be the ideal

citizen and a true servant of the people in the performance of his duties

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 17

under the law." (ibid, p.9)

After all, what the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had done. Jokhu

Singh had appeared as a witness. His cross-examination was not concluded

without which his testimony was liable to be excluded from being read in

evidence. The learned Judge had exhausted practically all means for

securing the presence of the witness. He would neither attend nor make any

communication to the Court. Even the threat of initiation of proceedings

under the Contempt of Courts Act did not deter him from abstaining. To

secure his presence a non-bailable warrant had to be issued. He avoided the

service of non-bailable warrant of arrest and appeared in the Court in the late

hours. He was not apologetic and felt that he was above the process of the

Court. It cannot be said that the higher authorities of police were not aware

of the behaviour of Jokhu Singh. Either they knew about it or they should

have known about it. Instead of offering the bail, Jokhu Singh was busy

managing for the Judge being approached or influenced by extra legal

methods. Jokhu Singh and his confederate decided to take the law in their

own hands and assault the Judge and anyone who came in their way. We do

not think that any of the appellants deserve any sympathy or mercy.

We trust and hope that this case would set in motion the thinking

process of the persons occupying higher echelons in police administration

specially in Bihar and take care to ensure that such incidents do not recur in

future.

We direct the disciplinary authorities before whom the disciplinary

proceedings are pending and the criminal Courts before whom the

prosecutions are pending against the appellants to conclude the proceedings

and the trial at the earliest. The Commission holding the enquiry under the

Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952 would also do well to conclude its

proceedings at the earliest. We request Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the

High Court of Patna to watch and if necessary monitor the proceedings of

the Commission of Inquiry and issue directions to the criminal courts to

expeditiously conclude the pending criminal cases. If the commission of

enquiry faces non-cooperation or any obstruction in its progress, the

Secretary of the Commission may send a communication to the Registrar

General of this Court pointing out the difficulties, if any, faced by the

Commission and contributing to the delay in proceedings and any

communication so received shall be placed by the Registrar General before

the Court for directions on judicial side. The result of disciplinary

proceedings, the judgment of the criminal Courts and the findings of

Commission of Enquiry shall be communicated forthwith to the Registrar

General of this Court and in any case before expiry of a period of six months

from today. Copies of this judgment shall be circulated to the Registrar

General, High Court of Patna and the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar

for being brought to the notice of all concerned. Non-compliance with the

directions given herein may be treated as disobedience of the order of this

Court liable to be dealt with accordingly.

The appeals are dismissed. The appellants who are on bail shall

forthwith surrender to their bail bonds and taken into custody to serve out

the sentences as passed by the High Court of Patna. The Director General of

Police, Bihar is directed to ensure compliance with this order by securing

presence of all the appellants to serve out the sentences passed on them by

the High Court.

We place on record our appreciation for the invaluable assistance

rendered to the Court by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, who appeared as Amicus

Curiae at our request.