Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1967 DIGILAW 266 (ALL)

Sant Ram Bhatia v. State

1967-08-04

RAJESHWARI PRASAD

body1967
ORDER Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - This revision petition has been filed by Sri Sant Ram Bhatia. The Petitioner was convicted for an offence u/s 228 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by one Sri S.N. Sharma, Magistrate 1st Class, Judicial Officer (City) Kanpur. The sentence awarded to him is fine of Rs. 200/-. 2. Against that order of conviction there was an appeal preferred by the Petitioner which was dismissed by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur by his order dated 7th August, 1965. The relevant facts which emerge from the affidavit filed by the Petitioner in the court below and which have been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge are as follows: The Petitioner had occasion to appear in the court of Sri S.N. Sharma, Magistrate 1st Glass, Judicial Officer, Kanpur, in connection with some criminal cases, as the Petitioner is an advocate practising at Kanpur. On 2nd December, 1964 while the Petitioner was cross-examining the investigating officer in criminal case--State v. Brijpati Singh--Sri Sharma made the following remarks: Mai to janta tha ki aj subeh ap ki sakal dekh li hai aj ka kam ho chuka. The Petitioner felt greatly insulted and moved an application before Sri R.K. Garg, the then Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Kanpur, the same day against Sri Sharma, Magistrate. He also reported the matter to the President of the Bar Association, Sri S. Bhasin. The Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) called for an explanation of Sri Sharma which annoyed Sri Sharma very much. This incident was only a background of the incident that was to follow. On 18th January, 1965, according to the Petitioner he moved a bail application in the court of Sri Sharma on behalf of his client Dodh Nath. Mr. Sharma called for the report of A.P.P. on the same day. Although the report was received on the same day no order on the bail application was made. On the 20th of January, 1965, while the Petitioner was conducting a civil suit No. 82 of 1963 in the court of Munsif Havali, Kanpur, his clerk informed him that his presence for a few minutes in the court of the Judicial Officer, Sri Sharma, was necessary, with a view to get the surety bonds accepted by him. On the 20th of January, 1965, while the Petitioner was conducting a civil suit No. 82 of 1963 in the court of Munsif Havali, Kanpur, his clerk informed him that his presence for a few minutes in the court of the Judicial Officer, Sri Sharma, was necessary, with a view to get the surety bonds accepted by him. The Petitioner says that he hurriedly reached the court of the Magistrate and gave the surety bonds to the reader of the court. The amount for which the bond was furnished was by oversight not mentioned in the bond. The reader of the Court of the Judicial Officer asked the Petitioner to fill in the amount in the blank spaces provided for that purpose. Seeing this Mr. Sharma, Judicial Officer, made a remark in the following words: How have you dared to take the papers from the table? The Petitioner explained that he came hurriedly to that court, did not notice the omission and that he had taken the papers at the instance of the reader. The Petitioner then alleged that the Magistrate called two police constables and directed the Petitioner to be taken into custody and he was therefore taken into custody by two constables and remained in that condition for an hour. According to the Petitioner Mr. Sharma did not write any order for taking the Petitioner into custody. He dictated some order to the reader and got the same typed. Thereafter he directed the reader to obtain the signature of the Petitioner on that order. The Petitioner then filed an application indicating therein that he had been taken into custody by the order of the court. The Magistrate is said to have then gone into high temper and he loudly said: Chup Raho Mujhey Samjhao Nahi Abhi Tummhen Seedha Karta Hoon. Bahot Din Ke Bad Aj Hath Aye Ho. Ab Tumehn Nahin Chhorunga. Jaggi Baboo Se Mujhey Sab Kuchh Tomareh Babar Maloom Hai. Then Sri Sharma got another order of the nature of a notice u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure typed. He put his signature and dated the same and handed over a copy of it to the Petitioner. On 30-1-1965, the Petitioner moved another application in the court of Sri Sharma enquiring about the nature of the offence said to be committed by him, so that he could submit his explanation fully and properly. He put his signature and dated the same and handed over a copy of it to the Petitioner. On 30-1-1965, the Petitioner moved another application in the court of Sri Sharma enquiring about the nature of the offence said to be committed by him, so that he could submit his explanation fully and properly. That application was rejected and 9-2-1965, was fixed for filing of written statement. On 9-2-1965, the Petitioner could not file his written statement because according to the Petitioner Sri Sharma came to the Basta of the Petitioner at about 1.55 P.M. and intimidated him. The Petitioner then moved an application to that effect the same day in the court of Sri Sharma. On 10-2-1965, Sri Sharma told the Petitioner that he was conducting an enquiry u/s 476 against the Petitioner. Sri Sharma examined his reader and APP of his Court and then proceeded to examine the Petitioner on that date. One of the questions put to the Petitioner on that date was as to why were the proceedings u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure taken against him and it was in answer to that question that the Petitioner spoke the words which have been quoted in the order of the learned Magistrate. Thereafter the learned Magistrate took proceedings u/s 228 of the IPC at about 6.20 P.M. and convicted the Petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. All these facts mentioned above are mentioned in the affidavit that the Petitioner filed in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur, on 3-3-1965. The learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur, has noticed that affidavit and has observed that there was no counter affidavit against it on behalf of the State. It appears from the order of the learned Sessions Judge that he took the facts stated in the affidavit to be correct. It was on the basis of those facts that the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to consider the question whether an offence u/s 228 of the IPC read with Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had made out against the Petitioner or not and he answered that question in the affirmative, consequently maintained the order of conviction of the Petitioner. Section 228 of the IPC reads: 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. . The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate in this particular case was one prescribed by Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins that when an offence as described in Section 228 of the IPC is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day may, if it thinks fit, take cognizance of the offence and sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees and in default of payment, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid. 3. That the words spoken by the Petitioner were capable of causing insult to any person cannot be open to any doubt. Further it is also not open to any doubt that the Magistrate was a public servant and that he was sitting at some stage of a judicial proceeding. The only question, therefore, that arose in this case was whether the words that were spoken by the Petitioner were spoken with the intention of offering insult to such a public servant. 4. The record shows that the Magistrate was holding enquiry in respect of notice issued to the Petitioner u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the course of the enquiry it was open to the Magistrate to interrogate the Petitioner and to ask him why a complaint as proposed be not filed against him. On the date in question a number of questions were put to the Petitioner to which he gave answers. The last question put to him was "Mukadama Kyon Chala?". The question suggests that by the word "Mukadama" the learned Magistrate meant proceedings u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the date in question a number of questions were put to the Petitioner to which he gave answers. The last question put to him was "Mukadama Kyon Chala?". The question suggests that by the word "Mukadama" the learned Magistrate meant proceedings u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The implication of the question, therefore, was clearly to find out as to why the proceedings u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been started against him. Naturally reply to such a question would be enumeration of such reasons which made the proceedings u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure improper. Under that question the Petitioner had to defend himself not against the offence for which a complaint was proposed to be made but against proceedings u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The answer given by the Petitioner appears to be relevant to the possible defence that the proceedings u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were actuated on account of there being malice and ill will in the Magistrate at whose instance the proceedings had been started. Such reply would be relevant to the ultimate defence in the proceedings u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the proceedings were groundless or at least were not warranted. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the facts which were stated by him could have been used by the Petitioner in the appellate court and should not have been used before the Magistrate himself who was holding the enquiry u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am unable to appreciate this reasoning because once it is conceded that the answer which the Petitioner gave could be deemed to be a legitimate answer at the appellate stage there is no justification in saying that that very answer would not be a legitimate answer in the trial court. It has also been observed that the answer was not relevant to the defence of the Petitioner. The answer certainly would not be relevant to the defence that the Petitioner could ultimately take when a complaint was filed for the offences as proposed by the Magistrate but the question being one relating to the reasons for starting proceedings u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the reply given by the Petitioner would be relevant to the defence against those proceedings. It is not, usual, in enquiries u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to put to the person concerned a question of the type that was put to the Petitioner in this case. By putting that question the Petitioner was invited to disclose the reasons why proceedings u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were taken against him. Having invited the Petitioner to do so, the Magistrate could not treat the reply as one given with the intention of offering insult to him. There is force in the contention of the Petitioner that his intention in giving that reply was only to satisfy the Magistrate that no proceedings u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were called for and the presence of such an intention would exclude the intention to offer insult to the Magistrate. The contention is quite plausible. In that view of the matter the benefit of the situation must be given to the accused namely, the Petitioner in this case. 5. Although the use of the words which were selected by the Petitioner was improper and must be depricated, the situation in which he was placed protects him from the offence u/s 228 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The petition in revision is allowed. The order of Petitioner's conviction for an offence u/s 228 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of the fine awarded to him by the courts below are set aside. Fine if paid shall be refunded to the Petitioner.