Ram Narain Gupta, Advocate v. Ravi Dutta Singh — 1967 DIGILAW 313 (ALL)

ORDER Gyanendra Kumar, J. - This is an application for taking contempt proceedings against the Respondent for hampering the process of law by-- (i) threatening, beating up and dishonestly arresting the complainants so that they may not prosecute their cases against the Respondent; (ii) threatening, beating up and dishonestly arresting their witnesses so that they may not give evidence against the Respondent; and (iii) threatening, beating up and unlawfully detaining the counsel appearing in the complaint cases in order to deter him from conducting the same. Three instances have been cited by the Petitioner-- (a) relating to Sukh Lal complainant and his witness Sheoraj and Sheo Karan; (b) relating to Babu Lal and Munni Lal, who were witnesses in Raja Ram's complaint case and (c) relating to the Petitioner, Ram Narain Gupta Advocate, who was appearing as counsel or brief-holder in the above and some other complaint cases pending against the Respondent. The above instances will be dealt with seriatim, after setting forth preliminary facts and disposing of preliminary objections. 2. The Petitioner, Ram Narain Gupta, is an Advocate practising at Kanpur, mostly on the criminal side, while the Respondent, Ravi Dutta Singh, was the Station Officer, PS Narwal, in the district of Kanpur. In his capacity as a lawyer, the Petitioner had filed several criminal complaints against the Respondent on behalf of his clients, such as Har Govind Singh, Manbodhan and Raja Ram. In certain others he had held the brief of the complainants' counsel, e.g. in the cases filed by Sukh Lal and Babu Lal. The complaint of Manbodhan was instituted on 30-10-1965. It is alleged that Manbohdan was put under arrest, threatened and beaten by the Respondent in the thana with the result that his complaint was ultimately dismissed for default on 14-4-1966. Here we are not concerned with Manbodhan's case, except that the Petitioner was his counsel therein. 3. The first objection of the Respondent's counsel is that the Petitioners affidavit in support of this contempt application has not been properly verified inasmuch as (1) facts beyond the personal knowledge of the Petitioner have been inserted in the affidavit and (2) verification clause is defective in so far as the paragraphs relating to the case of Babu Lal and Munni Lal have been sworn partly on personal knowledge, while the basis of knowledge of the remaining part has not been disclosed. These formal defects lose all significance where the Petitioner has stepped into the witness-box and has been thoroughly cross-examined, inter alia about the sources of knowledge of various facts alleged by him and when Babu Lal and Munni Lal had not only filed their respective affidavits but had also appeared as witnesses before this Court, to be thoroughly cross examined. 4. The second objection raised on behalf of the Respondent is with regard to Sukh Lals case, via. that Sukh Lal himself has not approached this Court for any action in contempt against the Respondent and that it is only the Petitioner, who has cited the instance of Sukh Lals case as well in support of his contempt application and as such the entire proceedings relating to Sukh Lal and his witnesses Sheoraj and Sheo Karan are illegal and without jurisdiction. 5. No authority has been cited before me in support of the contention that except for the party directly aggrieved, no other person can move the Court for taking contempt proceedings. Let it be remembered that the allegations against the Respondent for having threatened Sukh Lal and his two witnesses Sheoraj and Sheo Karan had clearly been made in the Petitioner's instant, application for contempt. It is true that Sukh Lal or his witnesses Sheoraj and Sheo Karan had not filed any affidavit in support of this application, but I think it was not absolutely necessary. At the instance of the State counsel, Sukh Lal was summoned as a witness in this case by my order dated 19-5-1967, without any objection by the Respondent. Accordingly Sukh Lal appeared as a witness before this Court and in his deposition made serious allegations regarding the Respondent's misconduct with him and his two witnesses Sheoraj and Sheo Karan. This objection is without substance and stands rejected, particularly when Sukh Lal is now in the capacity of a co-complainant with the Petitioner. 6. Another objection raised about Sukh Lals case is that inasmuch as the contempt application, as it originally stood, did not pray for taking any proceedings against the Respondent in respect of the court of Judicial Officer Derapur, where Sukh Lals complaint had been transferred by the ADM (J) Kanpur, this Court has no jurisdiction to enquire into the allegations relating to Sukh Lal and his two witnesses Sheoraj and Sheo Karan. As already noted above, the Petitioner had clearly made a mention in his contempt application and its accompanying affidavit about the misconduct of the Respondent vis-a-vis Sukh Lal and his two witnesses, though in the prayer the name and particulars of the transferee Court, viz. the Judicial Officer, Derapur, had not been noted. The Petitioner has since applied for amendment of the relevant paragraph of the petition and the prayer, which has been allowed by me subject to payment of costs, readily accepted by the Respondent. The formal defect, if any, has now been removed. 7. It has not been challenged by the Respondent that without any warrants he had arrested Sukh Lal and his two witnesses Sheoraj and Sheo Karan. Similar was the position with Babu Lal and Munni Lal, who were witnesses in Raja Ram's complaint case. The contention of the Respondent, however, is that he had not arrested these persons dishonestly or out of ulterior motives, but had done so in the discharge of his official duty inasmuch as several reports of serious offences had been lodged against Sukh Lal and his witnesses; while Babu Lal and Munni Lal were wanted in the case Under Sections 323, 147 and 148, IPC challenged to the Court of the ADM (J) Kanpur at the instance of one Bhagwati Prasad. His case is that an honest, though mistaken, arrest, although it might interfere with the due course of justice, does not amount to contempt and so he had not committed any contempt in the instant case. In support of his plea the Respondent has relied upon Kanhaiya Lal v. Sugan Singh 1961 (2) CrLJ 875 MP and Homi Rustomji v. Sub Inspector Baig AIR 1944 Lah 196. In these cases it was held that in order to constitute contempt by the arresting officer there must be something more than arrest without legal justification, such as malafides, that is, an intention directly or indirectly to interfere with the due course of justice. In other words, the arrest must have been intended or calculated to interfere with the due course of justice and an honest, though mistaken, arrest, though it might interfere with the due course of justice, does not amount to contempt. There may be no dispute about the principle of law laid down in these two cases. In other words, the arrest must have been intended or calculated to interfere with the due course of justice and an honest, though mistaken, arrest, though it might interfere with the due course of justice, does not amount to contempt. There may be no dispute about the principle of law laid down in these two cases. But after considering the evidence in the instant case I am quite satisfied that the Respondent had arrested Sukh Lal and his witnesses as well as Babu Lal and Munni Lal dishonestly and with ulterior motives so that they may not appear against him as witnesses in Court. The Respondent had thus clearly and intentionally interfered with the due course of justice, as will be discussed hereinafter. 8. The next contention put forward on behalf of the Respondent is that contempt jurisdiction is a summary jurisdiction and it would be an abuse of the process of law to have a detailed trial, particularly when facts are in dispute. It is important to note that along with the petition of committal for contempt the Petitioner had not only filed his own affidavit but also those of Babu Lal and Munni Lal, with numerous annexures. In reply, the Respondent, likewise not only field his own counter-affidavit along with various annexure, but also the affidavits of Head Constable Vijay Singh and Constable Abdul Majid. Together with the rejoinder affidavit of the Petitioner were again filed quite a number of documents as annexures thereto. The counsel for the parties desired to cross-examine the dependents of the aforesaid affidavits, which prayer was legitimate and was allowed. Thereafter on 18-5-1967 the State Counsel applied for summoning Sukh Lal, the ADM (J) Kanpur and the Medical Officer who had examined the Petitioner's injuries, as necessary witnesses in the case. This prayer was also granted in the interest of justice. It is true that normally contempt jurisdiction is considered to be summary jurisdiction. However, I have not been shown any authority which bars the Courts from holding a detailed enquiry, when necessary. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above and since the allegations of contempt were of a very serious nature, a thorough enquiry had to be done, for which the summary procedure usually followed in contempt cases was obviously not suitable. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above and since the allegations of contempt were of a very serious nature, a thorough enquiry had to be done, for which the summary procedure usually followed in contempt cases was obviously not suitable. If there was truth in the allegations made by the Petitioner, it was the duty of this Court to take notice thereof as also to take necessary action in the interest of justice. This Court could not have justifiably rejected the Petitioner's application merely with the remark that there was a serious controversy about the facts and that an application for contempt was, therefore, not the proper remedy. 9. Another argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent is that the incident relating to 16-4-1966 regarding the alleged threat to Babu Lal and Munni Lal had taken place in and outside the Court Room of the ADM (J) Kanpur, when the case was listed for evidence in his Court on that date. According to the Respondent's contention it was the ADM (J) alone who was competent to take action u/s 228, IPC; and the jurisdiction of the High Court was barred u/s 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Similar is the argument with regard to the case of Sukh Lal and his witnesses Sheoraj and Sheo Karan, which was fixed for evidence on 22-1-1966, when they are alleged to have been prevented by the Petitioner from appearing as witnesses in the Court of the J.O. Derapur. 10. In the first place, the grievance of the Petitioner is not only with regard to the isolated conduct of the Respondent exhibited on 22-1-1966 and 16-4-1966 but it relates to other misconducts as well, which are inexplicably connected with the incidents of 22-1-1966 and 16-4-1966. Here it is not possible to dissect the various acts of the Respondent, so as to hold that so much was within the sole jurisdiction of the Magistrates concerned and the rest within the over-all jurisdiction of the High Court. Secondly, it appears that the scope and ambit of Section 228 IPC is confined to ex-facie insult or interruption offered to a public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding and not to other cases of contempt of Court. Secondly, it appears that the scope and ambit of Section 228 IPC is confined to ex-facie insult or interruption offered to a public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding and not to other cases of contempt of Court. At any rate, the High Court is a Court of Record and there can be no doubt about its power to institute proceedings and punish contempts of its subordinate Courts in its special jurisdiction, which is inherent in all Courts of Record. Re Sukh Lal and his witnesses--Coming to the merits of the case of Sukh Lal, it transpires from the evidence and material on record that there was a dispute between Sukh Lal and his brother Satya Narain over a grove. The said Satya Narain was friendly with the Respondent, so much so that the latter's buffalo used to be sent to the former for being grazed in the village. With the concurrence of the Respondent, the said Satya Narain lodged a false report for theft against his brother Sukh Lal. In that connection the Respondent searched Sukh Lals house and forcibly took away certain silver ornaments and cash after giving him a beating. The result was that on 14-10-1965 Sukh Lal filed a complaint u/s 394, IPC against the Respondent and Constable Yaqoob for having given him severe beating with lathis and for having snatched away the silver belt of his wife. It was also alleged that the Respondent had pressed her breasts and had forcibly taken away Rs. 300/- in cash and two pairs of payals and one pair of silver karas from his house. In Sukh Lals complaint, Sheoraj and Sheo Karan were the eye-witnesses. Sukh Lal had got himself medically examined and was found to have sustained a number of lathi injuries. Sri Ranadhir Singh Advocate was the counsel for Sukh Lal complainant but at times the Petitioner held his brief. In that case the Respondent had been summoned as an accused and 17-1-1966 was fixed for evidence. However, Sukh Lals witnesses could not be examined on that date because the Respondent did not appear in Court and sent a slip through the co-accused constable, saying that he was busy with the SP. The case was accordingly adjourned to 22-1-1966. However, the very next morning, viz. However, Sukh Lals witnesses could not be examined on that date because the Respondent did not appear in Court and sent a slip through the co-accused constable, saying that he was busy with the SP. The case was accordingly adjourned to 22-1-1966. However, the very next morning, viz. on 18-1-1966, the Respondent is alleged to have dishonestly arrested Sukh Lal and his two witnesses Sheoraj and Sheo Karan u/s 151, Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with an apprehended case u/s 107/117, Code of Criminal Procedure and gave them a thorough beating, accompanied with threats not to appear as witnesses against him in the complaint case of Sukh Lal v. Ravi Dutt Singh and another or else they would be falsely implicated in some murder case. On 22-1-1966, which was fixed for the next hearing, Sukh Lal and his witnesses could not attend the Court on account of their arrest and detention, with the result that his complaint was dismissed in default. The Respondent was present in Court that day but obviously did not inform the Magistrate that only the other day he had put the complainant and his witnesses under arrest and on that account they could not have attended the Court on 22-1-1966. 11. It was argued on behalf of the Respondent that in effecting the arrest of Sukh Lal and his two witnesses on 18-1-1966, the Respondent had acted under the special powers conferred on a police officer, that he was satisfied that Sukh Lal and his witnesses had a design to commit the murder of Satya Narain and Ganga Prasad and that it appeared to him that the commission of the offence could not otherwise be presented. It was stressed that this Court is not competent to look into the subjective discretion of the Respondent, when he was exercising his powers u/s 151, Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon in re Om Prakasha Gupta AIR 1949 Mad 744, A.K. Gopalan Vs. State of Kerala and Others, AIR 1962 Ker 215 and Nagar Mahapalika v. Mohan Singh 1966 AWR 179 SC. On the other hand, on behalf of the Petitioner, reliance has been placed upon my decision in Mohammad Ali v. Ram Swarup 1963 AWR 760 , in which I had an occasion, inter alia, to consider the cases of Om Prakash Gupta (supra) and A.K. Gopalan (supra). On the other hand, on behalf of the Petitioner, reliance has been placed upon my decision in Mohammad Ali v. Ram Swarup 1963 AWR 760 , in which I had an occasion, inter alia, to consider the cases of Om Prakash Gupta (supra) and A.K. Gopalan (supra). In a case u/s 491, Code of Criminal Procedure while discussing the scope of Section 151, Code of Criminal Procedure it was held by the Madras High Court in re Om Prakasha Gupta (supra) that the knowledge that the person sought to be arrested entertained a design to commit a cognizable offence and the appearance of the fact that the commission of the offence could not be otherwise prevented are those of the police officer concerned and are not capable of an independent investigation. In such a case the High Court could not go into the above questions which were in the subjective discretion of the police officer. It is, however, noteworthy that on the face of the proceedings of that case there was nothing to indicate that the arrest or custody of the detenu was illegal or improper. In A.K Gopalan's case (supra) it was observed by the learned Judges of Kerala High Court: The discretion (Under Section 151, Code of Criminal Procedure) is mainly with the police officer and unless there is clear evidence that it is a fraudulent exercise of the power vested in the officer, his discretion cannot be questioned in proceedings u/s 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (The words in bracket are mine). Thus the jurisdiction of the Court to go into the matter in a proper case was not altogether held to be barred. 12. In the 1963 case of Mohammad Ali I had expressed the view to the contrary, with the profoundest respect to the learned Judges, who had decided the cases of Om Prakash Gupta and A.K. Gopalan if they are supposed to have laid down an absolute dictum that under no circumstance could the High Court go into the question of the proper exercise of the discretion of police officer in making the arrest u/s 151, Code of Criminal Procedure. I had also held in Mohammad Ali's case that the person likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility could not be said to be guilty of any offence, much less, a cognizable offence. I had also held in Mohammad Ali's case that the person likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility could not be said to be guilty of any offence, much less, a cognizable offence. After the commencement of the Constitution of India, the liberty of a citizen had to be jealously guarded and preserved, in view of the clear mandate contained in Article 21 of the Constitution, which enjoins "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". There is no arbitrary power in the executive or the police to detain or punish a person, except in accordance with law. Once a person is arrested and detained, the executive has to justify its action. It is an established principle that before a person is deprived of his liberty, the procedure established by law must be strictly followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of the person affected. 13. In the instant case, Sukh Lal and his two witnesses Sheoraj and Sheo Karan were arrested and sent up only u/s 107/117, Code of Criminal Procedure and as such they could not be said to be guilty of any offence, much less, of a cognizable offence. Moreover, it would be presently shown that the discretion exercised by the Respondent in putting them under arrest was fraudulent and dishonest. In Nagar Mahapalika's case (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court: In a contempt proceeding, when something has been done in compliance with a certain interpretation of a statute which can be good, it would be difficult to hold that that act would amount to contempt of Court. In fact, the above Supreme Court ruling goes against the contention of the Respondent, for it was held by the Supreme Court that at least in a contempt proceeding, when something has been done by the contemner in compliance with a certain interpretation of a statute, it would be open to the Court to see whether such an interpretation could be 'good' or was only fraudulent and dishonest to cover up his mischievous design under the cloak of an alleged authority of law. It would presently be demonstrated that the Respondent's interpretation of Section 151, Code of Criminal Procedure was not 'good' but was bad to the limit, being smeared with dishonesty, fraud, vendata and threat in order to terrify and subjugate Sukh Lal and his witnesses and thus to refrain them from appearing as witnesses against the Respondent in the complaint case pending against him before the Magistrate. 14. In this connection it is necessary to consider the deposition of the Respondent himself who admits that in 1965 he had challaned Sukh Lal Under Sections 457 and 411, IPC in connection with a theft alleged to have been committed by him in the house of his own brother Satya Narain. In that connection the Respondent had admittedly taken away some silver ornaments from Sukh Lai's, house. But in that case Sukh Lal was acquitted by the Magistrate and the articles recovered from his possession were given back to him as he had filed a receipt of purchase of the silver peti, which was said to have been stolen by him from Satya Narain's house. The Respondent admits that in his judgment dated 30-3-1966 the Magistrate has held: Sukh Lal has been falsely implicated in this concocted and cooked up case. Accused is entitled for his goods. The Respondent concedes that he has not made an application for the expunction of these remarks and that an enquiry is pending against him u/Para 511 of the Police Regulations, on account of the above quoted remarks of the Magistrate. 15. It was during the pendency of the above-mentioned case that Sukh Lal had filed a complaint against the Respondent on 14-10-1965 u/s 394, IPC in which Sheoraj and Sheo Karan were his witnesses. As already stated, the Respondent had been summoned as an accused and 17-1-1966 was fixed for prosecution evidence. But the case had to be postponed to 22-1-1966 as the Respondent absented himself and sent a slip to the Court, through his co-accused constable, that he was busy with the Superintendent of Police. The very next day, i.e. on 18-1-1966, the Respondent arrested Sukh Lal and his witnesses and thereafter gave them a thorough beating. The Respondent says that Satya Narain and Ganga Prasad on the one hand and Sukh Lal and his witnesses Sheoraj and Sheo Karan on the other, had filed several reports against one another. The very next day, i.e. on 18-1-1966, the Respondent arrested Sukh Lal and his witnesses and thereafter gave them a thorough beating. The Respondent says that Satya Narain and Ganga Prasad on the one hand and Sukh Lal and his witnesses Sheoraj and Sheo Karan on the other, had filed several reports against one another. The copies of none of these reports have been produced. We do not know the nature and gravity of those reports, nor as to when they were made and by whom. He obviously knew that the evidence in Sukh Lals case had to be postponed to 22-1-1966 only a day earlier (17-1-1966) on account of the absence of the Respondent, who was an accused in that case. If the reports filed by the parties were so alarming, as the Respondent represents them to be, one would expect the Respondent to take immediate action rather than wait till 18-1-1966. It was also expected, in all propriety, that the Respondent would send his Second Officer (who was admittedly posted in his thana) to enquire into the matter, rather than himself go to Sukh Lal, when he was the principal accused in the pending complaint filed by the latter against him. According to his own admission, the Respondent just happened to be in village Hatherua "per chance". He says that he had not gone there with the intention of enquiring into the complaints of the villagers, which shows that the reports lodged at the Respondent's thana were not of any serious nature, so as to call for immediate action. However, the Respondent wants us to believe that as soon as he reached village Hatherua, he was suddenly told that Sukh Lal and his witnesses were contemplating to commit the murder of Satya Narain and Ganga Prasad. When the Sub-Inspector learnt this alarming news, he did not care to send for and verify the fact from Satya Narain and Ganga Prasad, though he knew that Sukh Lal and his witnesses had also filed a number of reports against them. He only called Sukh Lal and his two witnesses Sheoraj and Sheo Karan, who did not admit that they were intending to commit any murder. But they are supposed to have said at the very face of the Sub-Inspector that "they would certainly do jhagra" with Satya Narain and Ganga Prasad. He only called Sukh Lal and his two witnesses Sheoraj and Sheo Karan, who did not admit that they were intending to commit any murder. But they are supposed to have said at the very face of the Sub-Inspector that "they would certainly do jhagra" with Satya Narain and Ganga Prasad. The Respondent does not even remember the names of the persons who had informed him about the projected misdeeds of Sukh Lal and his witnesses. Then said that they were none other than Satya Narain and Ganga Prasad. According to the Respondent, he had reasons to think that a serious offence may be committed by Sukh Lal and his witnesses in his very presence in the village. It was under this supposed apprehension that the Respondent put Sukh Lal and his witnesses under immediate arrest, as authorised by Section 151, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Respondent admits that Sukh Lal and his witnesses had come unarmed, yet he apprehended that they might commit murder or any other serious offence forthwith, in his very presence. The Respondent goes on to say that he considered Sukh Lal to be a dangerous person as he was once accused in a murder case, though he had been acquitted by the High Court. There were also reports of Sheoraj being a thief, so he considered him also to be a dangerous person. But in the very next sentence the Respondent admits "However, there were no such complaints against Sheo Karan, yet I considered it fit to put him under arrest". 16. The provisions of Section 151, Code of Criminal Procedure are quite clear. The statement of Sukh Lal and his witnesses that they would do jhagra even if true, could by no means be considered to be a design to commit a cognizable offence, particularly when, at least in the case of Sheo Karan, there was no complaint of his being a dangerous person. It is of importance to note that proceedings u/s 107/117, Code of Criminal Procedure alone were taken against these persons, which also fell through, as not a single witness could be produced to substantiate the charge. 17. The Respondent admits that Sukh Lal and his two witnesses had been given a beating at the time of their arrest and that injuries were actually found on their person when they were locked up in the Havalat. 17. The Respondent admits that Sukh Lal and his two witnesses had been given a beating at the time of their arrest and that injuries were actually found on their person when they were locked up in the Havalat. According to his own explanation, the reason why injuries were inflicted on these persons was that though "they were unarmed yet there was apprehension that as soon as they were caught by the police, they might try to disentangle themselves and make good their escape. So they were scotched into submission". There is no suggestion by the Respondent that at the time of their arrest, Sukh Lal and his two witnesses had put in any resistance or used any violence or force. According to his own admission, the injuries were inflicted on them lest after their arrest last "they might try to disentangle themselves and make good their escape". 18. The Respondent is an experienced Sub-Inspector, having put in 18 years of service. He evidently knew the provisions of Sections 46 and 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which relate to arrest. The relevant portions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 46, Code of Criminal Procedure run as under: 46 (1). In making an arrest the police officer...shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action. (2) If such a person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer...may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.... On the other hand, Section 50, Code of Criminal Procedure provides that "The person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape". Thus it is abundantly clear that the police officer can inflict injuries on the person sought to be arrested only when he forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him or attempts to evade the arrest. It is not the case of the Respondent here that Sukh Lal and his two witnesses had resisted or evaded their arrest. In the instant case they were given a beating because there was a distant apprehension in the mind of the worthy Sub-Inspector that they might try to disentangle themselves and make good their escape after they had been caught by the police. In the instant case they were given a beating because there was a distant apprehension in the mind of the worthy Sub-Inspector that they might try to disentangle themselves and make good their escape after they had been caught by the police. It has not been suggested that the persons arrested had tried or even indicated their intention to escape. 19. The wholly uncalled for beating of Sukh Lal andhis two witnesses clearly shows the absolute malafides of the Respondent and proves that they had been put under arrest and "scotched into submission" because they were the witnesses against him in the complaint case, which was fixed for evidence a day earlier on 17-1-1966 (but had to be postponed at the instance of the Respondent) and in which, only a few days later, their evidence was to be recorded on 22-1-1966. Sukh Lal, in his deposition clearly stated that he and his witnesses were threatened and given a beating by the Respondent in order to terrorise and dissuade them from appearing as witnesses against the Respondent in his complaint case pending against the Respondent. The Respondent did not only threaten and beat Sukh Lal and his witnesses with the above object, but he actually succeeded in his design, as Sukh Lals complaint was dismissed in default by the Magistrate on 22-1-1966 (Annexure "H" to the rejoinder affidavit of the Petitioner) in the absence of Sukh Lal and his witnesses, whose arrest and detention had been manoeuvred by the Respondent. On 22-1-1966 the Respondent was present in the Court of the Magistrate, when the complaint was dismissed in default, but he evidently kept mum and did not inform the Magistrate about his achievements of having scotched Sukh Lal complainant and his witnesses into submission and putting them under arrest and detention with effect from 18-1-1966. 20. The conduct of the Respondent in manocuvring the detention of Sukh Lal and his witnesses till after the next date of hearing (22-1-1966) is very revealing. The arrested persons should have been produced on 19-1-1966 before the SDM Sadar, Kanpur, who had jurisdiction over Sukh Lals village, but they were not so produced before him, nor even before his Link Officer, the SDM of Ghatampur. On the other hand, they were produced before a third Magistrate, viz., SDM Billaur, who could not be expected to be familiar with the tactics of the Respondent. On the other hand, they were produced before a third Magistrate, viz., SDM Billaur, who could not be expected to be familiar with the tactics of the Respondent. It has been argued on behalf of the Respondent that it was not he who had produced Sukh Lal and his witnesses before the SDM Billaur, but it was the constable of his thana who had done so, for some unknown reason and it was the SDM Billaur, who on 19-1-1966 ordered their detention Under Sections 107(4) and 117(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus the Respondent pleads ignorance about the circumstances under which the arrested persons were produced before the SDM Billaur and wants us to believe that he had nothing to do with the matter. It is in the evidence of Sukh Lal and it has half-heartedly been admitted by the Respondent himself that he was in Kanpur on 19-1-1966 and returned to his thana on 20-1-1966 at 9-10 p.m. The Respondent has not given any other reason for being at Kanpur on 19-1-1966. The circumstances clearly indicate that the Respondent had gone to Kanpur on 19-1-1966 with the design of manipulating the production of Sukh Lal and his witnesses before a third Magistrate from whom the police could easily manage to secure an order of detention in custody u/s 107(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, inasmuch as the village in question did not fall within his local jurisdiction and he was not empowered to proceed Under Sub-section (1) of Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Connection of time and sequence of the above events was obviously not fortuitous. The history of the 107/117, Code of Criminal Procedure proceedings launched against Sukh Lal and his two witnesses is indicative not only of the falsity of the case but shows that it was concocted by the Respondent in order to threaten, terrorise and demoralise them as also to physically prevent their appearance, by their arrest and manipulated detention in prison, as witnesses at the trial pending against the Respondent. The Respondent admits that the case u/s 107/117, Code of Criminal Procedure against Sukh Lal and his witnesses remained pending before the Magistrate for four or five months and that the statement of none of the prosecution witnesses was recorded therein. He also concedes that after numerous adjournments, 24-6-1966 was fixed for the prosecution evidence. The Respondent admits that the case u/s 107/117, Code of Criminal Procedure against Sukh Lal and his witnesses remained pending before the Magistrate for four or five months and that the statement of none of the prosecution witnesses was recorded therein. He also concedes that after numerous adjournments, 24-6-1966 was fixed for the prosecution evidence. He further admits: Someone told me that either the son-in-law of P.W. Ram Prasad had been murdered or some other relation of his had been murdered in his village--the names whereof I do not remember--so I did not possess necessary particulars to be able to incorporate the same in my chit sent to the Court (for further adjournment of the case). This information was communicated to me at my thana by someone. I do not remember whether I had sent for the witnesses of the 107, Code of Criminal Procedure case through summonses issued from the Court or through rubkars issued by me. (The words in bracket are mine). The correct position has been aptly described by the SDM Kanpur in his order dated 24-6-1966 (vide Annexure "I" to the rejoinder affidavit of the Petitioner) which is reproduced below:--"Opposite parties present. No prosecution witness is present as usual although today is the fifth adjournment allowed to the prosecution for the purpose. S.O. Narwal has been pleased to send a chit, to the court (through Con. No. 1635 Aulad Ahmad) in which he has written as follows: Muqadma dhara 107/117 Code of Criminal Procedure banam Sukh Lal Aadi. Shriman Ji, Uprokta muqadme ke gawah Ram Prasad ke damad ke ghar qatal ho gaya hai. Lihaza wah adalat hazir hone me majboor raha. Tatha dusre gawahan bhi hamdardi me gaye hain. Lihaza dusri tarikh dene ki kripa ki jaye. A perusal of the SO's report reveals that the alleged fact of murder has been mention ed in such a manner that no body will be able to find out whether any such murder actually took place. No name has been mentioned. A scrutiny of the police report dated 18-1-1966 shows that the O.Ps. have been sent up u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure simply because they were not punished in other cases of substantive offences On 19-1-1966 SDM Sadar was in Sadar Tahsil from about 11 AM to about 4.30 P.M. There was no need to produce the O.Ps. before some other SDM (SDM Bilhaur). have been sent up u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure simply because they were not punished in other cases of substantive offences On 19-1-1966 SDM Sadar was in Sadar Tahsil from about 11 AM to about 4.30 P.M. There was no need to produce the O.Ps. before some other SDM (SDM Bilhaur). Even if it was to be so done, the O.Ps. should have been produced before SDM Ghatampur who is my Link Officer. The SO's report is dated 18-1-1966. It was put up before GO on 19-1-1966. It was not put up before APP concerned for submission to court concerned. It was not submitted to court concerned. All this go to prove beyond doubt that there is no genuine apprehension of a breach of the peace from the OPs of any such nature which can attract the provisions of Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure. I, therefore, do not consider it just or proper to take any further action u/s 107/112 Code of Criminal Procedure against the OPs. The OPs. were bound down u/s 117(3) Code of Criminal Procedure on 19-1-1966 and have maintained peace till this date. In view of the above, I drop the proceedings, vacate the order u/s 112 Code of Criminal Procedure passed on 19-1-1966 and discharge the OPs. 21. To sum up, I find that there is a ring of truth in the complaint of Sukh Lal. His testimony inspires confidence. The statement of the Respondent is full of audacious lies. The Respondent was on friendly terms with Satya Narain, at whose instance the former had concocted a false case of theft against Sukh Lal, as found by the Magistrate. The Respondent designedly had not appeared on 17-1-1966 as an accused in the Court of the Magistrate in the complaint case lodged against him by Sukh Lal, wherein Sheoraj and Sheo Karan were the eye-witnesses, with the result that the case had to be postponed to 22-1-1966. The Respondent did not reach Sukh Lals village the very next day (18-1-1966) 'perchance' but with a pre-plan to beat and threaten Sukh Lal and his witnesses. There was neither any apprehension of the commission of murder of Satya Narain and Ganga Prasad by Sukh Lal and his witnesses nor of any breach of the peace on their part. The Respondent did not reach Sukh Lals village the very next day (18-1-1966) 'perchance' but with a pre-plan to beat and threaten Sukh Lal and his witnesses. There was neither any apprehension of the commission of murder of Satya Narain and Ganga Prasad by Sukh Lal and his witnesses nor of any breach of the peace on their part. The Respondent maliciously and fraudulently arrested Sukh Lal and his witnesses in abuse of the powers conferred on police officers by Section 151, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Respondent beat and threatened Sukh Lal, Sheoraj and Sheo Karan not to appear as witnesses in the complaint case pending against him (Respondent). With the same object they were fraudulently arrested by the Respondent and manoeuvered to be detained in custody till after 22-1-1966 on which date Sukh Lals complaint had to be dismissed in default. The proceedings u/s 107/117, Code of Criminal Procedure launched by the Respondent against Sukh Lal and his witnesses were false and baseless as found by the SDM Kanpur in his order dated 24-6-1966. Re:- Babu Lal, Munni Lal and R.N. Gupta, Advocate--The facts which emerge from the evidence and material on record regarding the cases of Babu Lal, Munni Lal and R.N. Gupta, Advocate are as follows. Babu Lal son of Bind a, resident of Karchhulipur, PS Narwal, is an educated man and is working as Assistant Teacher in the primary School Barui, PS Narwal. A dacoity was alleged to have been committed at the house of Babu Lal on the night between the 14th and 15th or March, 1966. He accordingly went to PS Narwal to lodge a report, where he met the Respondent. The SO is said to have dictated the report to him, but omitted to note down the names of the dacoits. On enquiry by Babu Lal, the Respondent is said to have replied that the names of the dacoits need not be mentioned in the report but he was noting the same in his diary and would take necessary action against them. One of the witnesses of the dacoity was Raja Ram. It is further alleged by Babu Lal that amongst the dacoits the SO actually arrested Bhagwati Prasad and Ghasitey and took them up to Kothi Mohammadpur, where he surreptitiously let them off. One of the witnesses of the dacoity was Raja Ram. It is further alleged by Babu Lal that amongst the dacoits the SO actually arrested Bhagwati Prasad and Ghasitey and took them up to Kothi Mohammadpur, where he surreptitiously let them off. On the other hand, he arrested his witness Raja Ram and after giving him a beating, detained him in the thana for three days. It was at the intervention of Babu Lal that the SO released Raja Ram with difficulty. Babu Lal then brought the said Raja Ram to Kanpur and got him medically examined in the Ursella Horsman Memorial Hospital, Kanpur. There he was found to have sustained four injuries. The said Raja Ram and Babu Lal sent representations to higher authorities against the highhandedness of the Respondent. Ultimately on 29-3-1965, Raja Ram filed a complaint against the Respondent Under Sections 218, 220 and 223, IPC in the Court of the ADM (J) Kanpur, in which the said Babu Lal was the principal witness for the prosecution. This complaint was filed through the Petitioner as his counsel. 4-4-1966 was fixed for the evidence of the prosecution but the case could not be taken up on that date and was adjourned to 16-4-1966. The case of the Petitioner and Babu Lal is that the Respondent is on friendly terms with Bhagwati Prasad (who was alleged to be one of the accused in the dacoity case of Babu Lal, but was let off by the Respondent near Kothi Mohammadpur). So the SO got him file a false report against Babu Lal and Munni Lal as a consequence whereof a case Under Sections 323, 147 and 148, IPC State v. Babu Lal and Ors. was started in the Court of the ADM (J) Kanpur. On 11-4-1966 the said Babu Lal had come to consult the Petitioner and was sitting at his bistar in the Court compound at Kanpur, when the Respondent made his appearance and after administering threats, gave a sound beating to Babu Lal and having put him under arrest, lodged him in the Kotwali, Kanpur. At that time the Petitioner was busy in another Court. When the Petitioner returned to his bistar, one Bhagwan Din resident of Karchhulipur asked him to move an application in the Court of the ADM (J) Kanpur, regarding the above highhandedness of the Respondent. At that time the Petitioner was busy in another Court. When the Petitioner returned to his bistar, one Bhagwan Din resident of Karchhulipur asked him to move an application in the Court of the ADM (J) Kanpur, regarding the above highhandedness of the Respondent. Accordingly the Petitioner moved an application in the aforesaid Court, a copy whereof is Annexure "A" to the Petitioner's affidavit accompanying the contempt application. The Petitioner deposes that thereafter he went to the Head Post-Office, Kanpur to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,250/- from his Savings Bank Account (vide entries dated 11-4-1966 in the Petitioner's passbook, a copy whereof is annexure "F" to the rejoinder affidavit of the Petitioner). After giving his pass book and withdrawal form to the dealing clerk (as the actual payment takes good few hours) the Petitioner wanted to go back to the Courts. In the meantime he developed some headache. So he proceeded towards the Chemists' shop in order to purchase Anacin tablets. On his way to the Chemists' shop, he was to pass the Kotwali. As soon as the Petitioner reached in front of the Kotwali gate, the Respondent caught him by the hand and having taken him in the Sahan of the Kotwali, inflicted fists and kick blows, accompanied by abusive threats and taunts for having filed various complaints against him. The Respondent is further alleged to have threatened the Petitioner with dire consequences if he did not refrain from appearing in the cases pending against him. Babu Lal, who had been locked up in the Havalat of the Kotwali, had also seen this marpit of the Petitioner by the Respondent. From the Kotwali, the Petitioner went to Ursella Horsman Memorial Hospital and got himself medically examined by Dr. Anand Swarup Gupta, who was then on duty there. The doctor found one contusion 2" 1 1/2" at the left angle of mandible. The doctor further noted that the Petitioner had also complained of pain in his left thigh. From the hospital the Petitioner went to the Court of the ADM (J) Kanpur and moved an application before him, setting out the above facts and praying that contempt proceedings be taken against the Respondent (vide Annexure "B" to the affidavit of the Petitioner). The Magistrate issued notice to the Respondent to show cause why he should not be punished according to law. 22. The Magistrate issued notice to the Respondent to show cause why he should not be punished according to law. 22. On 12-4-1966 the Petitioner made applications to the Kanpur Bar Association, Kanpur and the Lawyers Association, Kanpur for their information and necessary action. On 12-4-1966 the Executive Committee of the Kanpur Bar Association held a meeting and passed a resolution of protest, copies whereof were forwarded to the DM and the SSP Kanpur, along with covering letters dated 13-4-1966 similarly, the Lawyers Association, Kanpur passed a resolution on 14-4-1966 in the following words: It is resolved that this Association looks with grave concern with regard to the maltreatment meted out to Sri Ram Narain Gupta, as complained by him in his complaint dated 10-4-1966 and further requests the District Magistrate Kanpur to enquire into the matter immediately, as it is a serious matter, as the dignity of the legal profession is involved. On 18-4-1966 the General Body of the Kanpur Bar Association passed a similar resolution condemning the action of the Respondent and appealed to the authorities concerned to institute immediate enquiry into the matter, (see Annexures "G", "D" and "E" to the affidavit of the Petitioner). 23. As already mentioned above, the case of Raja Ram had been adjourned for evidence to 16-4-1966. On that date both Babu Lal and Munnu Lal had come to the Court of the ADM (J) to appear as prosecution witnesses in the complaint case of Raja Ram against the Respondent. They were both sitting outside the Court Room of the Magistrate. The Respondent came there and threatened both Babu Lal and Munni Lal not to appear as prosecution witnesses in the complaint case of Raja Ram against him and wanted to put Munni Lal under arrest. This was also witnessed by the Petitioner R.N. Gupta Advocate. Thereupon both Babu Lal and Munni Lal slipped inside the Court room. There also the Respondent is alleged to have threatened them and actually wanted to put Munni Lal under arrest in connection with the aforesaid case against these persons challaned on 10-4-1966 at the instance of Bhagwati Prasad. When the Respondent again entered the Court room, he was questioned by the Magistrate. There also the Respondent is alleged to have threatened them and actually wanted to put Munni Lal under arrest in connection with the aforesaid case against these persons challaned on 10-4-1966 at the instance of Bhagwati Prasad. When the Respondent again entered the Court room, he was questioned by the Magistrate. Thereupon the Respondent gave a written report to the Magistrate that Munni Lal was also required to be arrested as an accused in the case of Bhagwati Prasad and he may be allowed to be so arrested. Raja Ram also filed an application before the ADM (J) on 16-4-1966 that the Respondent was threatening his witnesses Babu Lal and Munni Lal with the dire consequence of being implicated in some dacoity case, if they appeared as prosecution witnesses in his case against the Respondent. The magistrate then ordered the Respondent not to affect the arrest of Munni Lal till he had given his evidence in the case. 24. As already stated earlier, both Babu Lal and Munni Lal have filed their respective affidavits in support of the afore-mentioned facts. At the request of the Respondent they were summoned for cross-examination. They appeared in this Court on 8-5-1967 when they were thoroughly cross-examined by the Respondent's counsel. Babu Lal is an educated man and is an assistant teacher in the Primary School Barai. He has impressed me to be a truthful witness. I am satisfied by the evidence of Babu Lal and the other material on record that the Respondent had threatned him (Babu Lal) on 11-4-1966 not to appear against him as a witness in Raja Ram's case and in order to terrorise him, the Respondent had arrested and given him a beating with a cane or danda with the above object. For the aforesaid misconduct of the Respondent, Babu Lal filed a complaint against him in which the Petitioner was his counsel. There is no denying the fact that Babu Lal had been arrested by the Respondent from the Court compound, Kanpur on 11-4-1966 and he had personally lodged him in Kotwali Kanpur at about mid-day. Babu Lals testimony that from the Hawalat he had seen the Respondent giving a beating to the Petitioner (R.N. Gupta Advocate) in the sahan of the Kotwati Kanpur at about 1.15 p.m. is also worthy of belief. Babu Lals testimony that from the Hawalat he had seen the Respondent giving a beating to the Petitioner (R.N. Gupta Advocate) in the sahan of the Kotwati Kanpur at about 1.15 p.m. is also worthy of belief. I further believe Babu Lal when he says that he and Munni Lal were again threatened by the Respondent on 16-4-1966, both in and outside the Court room of the ADM (J) Kanpur, not to appear as witnesses against him in the aforesaid complaint case of Raja Ram. 25. In his deposition, recorded in this Court on 9-5-1967, the Respondent admits that during the process of arrest (Hangamai giraftari) he had caused injuries to Babu Lal on 11-4-1966. The Respondent concedes that Babu Lal was not armed at that time. The Respondent further admits that Babu Lals injuries were noted in his General Diary in the following terms: Donon ghutnon me waram. Dahine jangh me do nishan bart (linear contusion). Banyeen jangh me nishan bart ek. Gale me dard batata hai. Byean pair ke takhne me sujan. Donon hathon ki Ku-hani wa panje me nishan warm ke. (The words in bracket are mine) The Respondent has given obviously false explanation for the injuries sustained by Babu Lal. This unnecessary and malicious beating of Babu Lal by the Respondent on 11-4-1966, supports the case of Babu Lal that he had also been threatened not to appear as a witness against the Respondent and with a view to terrorise him into submission, he was given a beating by the Respondent. It is significant that according to the Respondent's own admission, Babu Lal had been arrested for offences which were bailable but he was not released on bail, on account of his alleged inability to offer sureties. The Respondent conceded that in his General Diary he had noted: Bawajah adam dakhla zamanat per zaraiye report wastey karane daktary Head Moharrir Ko di gai Ki ravanajail Karen gay. It is impossible to believe that Babu Lal, who was a respectable man (being a teacher) and was fully known at least to the Petitioner and Sri Randhir Singh, Advocate, would not have been able to furnish requisite sureties and would have preferred to go to jail. It is impossible to believe that Babu Lal, who was a respectable man (being a teacher) and was fully known at least to the Petitioner and Sri Randhir Singh, Advocate, would not have been able to furnish requisite sureties and would have preferred to go to jail. There appears to be truth in Bhagwan Din's application dated 11-4-1966 moved before the ADM (J), wherein he says that he had enquired from the Respondent about the nature of the offence alleged against Babu Lal and had requested him to release the detenu on bail but the Darogha scolded him away. The testimony of Munni Lal is equally worthy of belief, when he says that on 16-4-1966 he and Babu Lal had been threatened by the Respondent not to appear as witnesses against him. This statement is supported not only by Babu Lal but by the Petitioner as well, who deposes that he had himself seen and heard the threats being held out by the Respondent to Babu Lal and Munni Lal, outside the Court room of the ADM (J) Kanpur. The facts that Raja Ram had actually made an application to the ADM (J), complaining against the above conduct of the Respondent and the Respondent had also submitted a written note to the Magistrate that he wanted to arrest Munni Lal, whereupon the Magistrate ordered him not to effect the arrest till his evidence had been recorded, lend clear support to the allegations that on 16-4-1966 as well, the Respondent had threatened Babu Lal and Munni Lal not to appear as witnesses against him, I hold accordingly. 26. This takes us to the case relating to the Petitioner, Ram Narain Gupta, Advocate. * * * * (His Lordship then examined the evidence in regard to Petitioner's case in paragraphs 26 to 35 and concluded as follows:) 27. Thus I have no hesitation in holding that the Petitioner was physically seized, dragged into the sahan of the Kotwali and beaten there by the Respondent and that these misdeeds were accompanied with threats, abuses and taunts for his appearing in the cases against the Respondent. The Petitioner was not only criminally assaulted but also wrongfully restrained and unlawfully detained in the Kotwali for some time. 28. The Petitioner was not only criminally assaulted but also wrongfully restrained and unlawfully detained in the Kotwali for some time. 28. It is of utmost importance that the members of the Bar, the litigants and their witnesses should enjoy complete freedom from fear in discharging their functions in proceedings pending before the Courts of law. Threatening and beating up of lawyers, litigants and witnesses in order to terrorise and prevent them from aiding the Courts in due administration of justice have to be annihilated with rigidity, because such acts and conduct deter and interrupt the normal flow of the stream of justice and amount to the grossest type of contempt of Court. Such threats and assaults obviously induce the litigants, their witnesses and the lawyers to forego the assistance they owe to the Courts. 29. In the instant case the misconduct of the Respondent is abominable, being tainted with malice and dishonesty. The contempt committed by the Respondent is of a very grave nature and calls for a deterrent punishment. The flagrant acts committed by him do not only amount to contempt of Court but also to the serious offence of wrongful confinement, at least in the case of the Petitioner. The audacity displayed by the Respondent is amazing. He is a disgrace to the police force and it is somewhat surprising that he is still continuing in the service, inspite of his vandalism being brought to the notice of the superior authorities. Except for a formal insertion in his counter-affidavit, the Respondent has not expressed a word of regret and has been extremely haughty in his demeanour. It is a case in which the maximum sentence provided by law should be inflicted on the contemner. 30. Accordingly I allow the petition and sentence the Respondent to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo four months further simple imprisonment. 31. This case was heard on a number of dates. The evidence of several witnesses was also recorded. The Respondent shall, therefore, pay a sum of Rs. 400/- as costs to the Petitioner and a sum of Rs. 100/- as costs to the Asstt. Government Advocate, Miss N.A. Rehman.