Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 664 (PAT)

Siwan v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-09

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2004
Judgment 1. Issue notice to the Director General of Police. 2. A part of the information is based on the record of the police itself. The other is the reports of the Munsif and the District Judge, Siwan. If the presiding Judge was a public servant discharging his duty then there are serious matters to be considered under Chapter X of the Indian Penal Code along with other violations which are in Chapter XXII, the like of which are criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance. Not to be ignored are the aspects on what matter the High Court may consider a criminal contempt on the report of the District Judge. What has happened at the District Judgeship of Siwan is a fact accepted. After the incident there seems to be much activity in accepting what had happened and expressing regret. One cannot insult a public justice system in the morning and then show regret in the evening. A Munsif is part of the public justice system. Public justice will collapse if this is done. 3. The persons, named in the report of the District Judge and the Munsif, shall present themselves at the Bar of this Court tomorrow failing which bailable warrants shall issue for their arrest for their presence in Court day after tomorrow. 4. Full explanation will be offered by the Director General of Police in person who will also remain present in the Court. 5. The Registrar General will draw out the persons named for issue of notice as above. 6. Put up day after tomorrow. Order dt. 1.7.2004 7 Issue notice to the Advocate-General. 8. The report of the District Judge has been received. This matter cannot be taken up in the style that a compoundable offence has been compounded. This is not possible. The presiding Judge has been roughed up and hassled as if there is an authority above him, i.e., the police. The only sin of the Judge was that he wanted to know why there was a commotion outside the court. In view of that he sought a report form the police personnel outside the court room. Rest is a matter for detail. 9. The matter is serious. 10. The only sin of the Judge was that he wanted to know why there was a commotion outside the court. In view of that he sought a report form the police personnel outside the court room. Rest is a matter for detail. 9. The matter is serious. 10. All the persons who have been named in the report (lest any one who may have been missed will be added) are charged to explain and offer their defence as to why the court ought not to take out proceedings for they being in contempt and take these proceedings to its logical conclusion and the consequences which warrant the occasion. The charge: 11. That you individually and/or in concert on 28.6.2004 and in the vicinity of the court of Sri Narendra Prasad, MunsifII, Siwan challenged the authority of the court by words spoken or signs and visible representation and thus scandalised and lowered the authority and the dignity of the court, aforesaid, and further obstructed the administration of justice. 12. The contemners will be entitled to receive the record which is before the court and on which they have been charged. 13. The persons present at the bar today are: (1) Ravindra Prasad, Sergeant Major (2) R.D. Yadav, Inspector (3) Arjun Rajak, O/C, Mufassil (4) Sheo Narayan Jha, ASI (5) Rama Kant Paswan, Constable-441 (6) Arjun Prasad Singh, Constable-291 14. Put up on Monday under the same heading. 15. The persons charged be present in court. 16. The Director-General of Police shall also be present. Order dt. 9.7.2004 17 A report was submitted by the District & Sessions Judge, Siwan. A MunsifII noticing that there was a commotion outside his chambers, and that also recently posted Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, desired peace within the court premises. The day is 28 June, 2004. The time is about 11.35 A.M. Notwithstanding that even lawyers were leaving the Court, as on that day there was a condolence meeting and the court was about to retire. 18. As there was a commotion outside the Chambers of the learned Munsif, he desired to know as to what exactly the excitement was about. From about the time when he was in Chambers at 10.45 A.M. he asked the courts staff to request the people outside not to make noise. He did not know what the commotion was about. 18. As there was a commotion outside the Chambers of the learned Munsif, he desired to know as to what exactly the excitement was about. From about the time when he was in Chambers at 10.45 A.M. he asked the courts staff to request the people outside not to make noise. He did not know what the commotion was about. Reports were received that it was the police van bringing in prisoners. The learned Munsif then went out himself and wanted to know from the incharge of police escort party, an Assistant Sub Inspector, on what is the cause of the disturbance. Instead of telling the learned Munsif that he will take control of the situation and ensure that there will be peace, this Assistant Sub Inspector gave a mouthful to the learned Munsif, harassed him, and hustled him. This was humiliation of a learned Munsif within court precincts. The District Judge has written a report on this. It is also on record that when learned Munsif II who otherwise was not in his court dress disclosed his identity and pleaded for peace within court areas the Assistant Sub Inspector along with his compliment of police personnel made the situation worst as if to chase the learned Munsif into the sanctum of his Chambers. 19. After the incident had happened there seemed to be some sort of a patch up exercise, it appears from the report that the District Magistrate has also attempted to accept the apology and recommend that the incident be consigned hereinafter. 20. When such a situation happens, the job of the District Judge is to make a report to this court as it has no power to proceed with a contempt. The contempt will be examined by the High Court. The condonation by apology, the consideration of it is the business of this Court. This was a criminal contempt in the face of the Munsif within the court compound. If the matter of roughing up a Judge, for the only sin that he was a Judge in a subordinate court and did not have the power to take care of these erring police officials, is not taken seriously then subordinate judiciary will be bullied by a constable. An event which has happened as in this case. Offering an apology in a matter like this cannot be an escape. An event which has happened as in this case. Offering an apology in a matter like this cannot be an escape. The High Court cannot suffer a situation that a police officer or his personnel will shake up a Judge in discharge of his official function. 21. To sum up Messrs. Sheo Narayan Jha, ASI, Ramakant Paswan, Constable, and Arjun Prasad Singh, Constable, are held guilty of contempt, for their actions and misdemeanors on 28 June 2004 in insulting the Munsif II, Siwan. They will be taken into custody and serve out a sentence of simple imprisonment for one week. 22. Consigned.