Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 597 (ORI)

Madan Mohan Behera v. State of Orissa

2011-12-14

S.PANDA

body2011
ORDER Misc. Case No. 1138 of 2011 14.12.2011 – The facts giving rise to this proceeding are as follows: 2. One Madan Mohan Behera-petitioner had filed BLAPL No.18400 of 2011 before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Khuntuni P.S. Case No.95 of 2011 corresponding to C.T. No.431 of 2011 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh for alleged commission of offence under Sections 407/408/420/34 IPC and the said bail application was disposed of by this Court on 14.9.2011 with the observation that this Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, this Court directed him to surrender before the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh and move an application for bail in the aforesaid case and in such event, the learned S.D.J.M. shall release him on bail on such terms and conditions as he may deem fit and proper. In pursuance of the said direction, he surrendered before the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh on 19.9.2011 and on the same day he was released on bail by the learned S.D.J.M. on furnishing bail of Rs. 15,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount with the following conditions:– 1. He shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses. 2. He shall not commit similar offences while on bail. 3. He shall appear before the I.O. every Sunday in between 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. for two months or till submission of F.F. whichever is earlier." The said fact was intimated to Mr. Jalandhar Jally, Inspector-in-Charge, Khuntuni Police Station by the Court Sub-Inspector, Athagarh on the same day, i.e., on 19.9.2011. Mr. Jalandhar Jally I.I.C., Khuntuni Police Station received the said copy on 21.9.2011. But along with the officials of Ganjam Police Station, he proceeded to the native village of the petitioner-Madan Mohan Behera, entered into his house, took him and his brother in the night and kept them in his custody without producing them before the Court below and informed them that they had been brought for the purpose of investigation. On 22.9.2011, when the family members of the petitioner enquired from the Khuntuni Police Station, they were intimated that the persons would be released after completion of the investigation. On 23.9.2011, the conducting counsel of the petitioner filed an affidavit before the Court below and he also filed an application for a direction to Mr. On 22.9.2011, when the family members of the petitioner enquired from the Khuntuni Police Station, they were intimated that the persons would be released after completion of the investigation. On 23.9.2011, the conducting counsel of the petitioner filed an affidavit before the Court below and he also filed an application for a direction to Mr. Jalandhar Jally, I.I.C., Khuntuni Police Station to cause production of the persons who had been illegally and unauthorisedly detained in the police custody. All the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of his Court by filing this Misc. Case by the said applicant enclosing the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh on 19.9.2011 and the receipt showing service of the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M. on 19.9.2011. This Court on 26.9.2011 directed the I.I.C., Khuntuni Police Station to appear in person before this Court on 29.7.2011 and file show cause for his high handedness and taking into custody the person who has already been released on bail by the Court below. A show cause was filed by the IIC, Khuntuni Police Station on 28.9.2011 through Government Counsel stating that on 21.9.2011 he reached the native village of accused- Madan Mohan Behara at about 11 P.M. with the help of the local police and on enquiry said Madan Mohan Behera and his brother expressed that Madan Mohan Behera had already been released on bail by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh but they failed to produce any paper to that effect and the brother of Madan Mohan Behera assured to produce all the papers with regard to release of Madan Mohan Behera after obtaining the same from their Advocate. The statement of Madan Mohan Behera was recorded on the same day under Section 161 Cr.P.C. who disclosed that he sold away the articles to one Babu Kabadia near Barchana Police Station. Both the brothers accompanying Mr. Jalandhar Jally, I.I.C. of Khuntuni Police Station in his vehicle reached Khuntuni Police Station on 22.9.2011 at about 8 A.M. On 22.9.2011, he received the order of the learned S.D.J.M. from the Court Sub-Inspector, Athagarh that the petitioner has already been released on bail on 19.9.2011. After knowing the said fact, he released the petitioner from the police station on 22.9.2011. 3. Since Mr. After knowing the said fact, he released the petitioner from the police station on 22.9.2011. 3. Since Mr. Jalandhar Jally, I.I.C., Khuntuni Police Station had not stated anything as to whether he received the intimation from the Court Sub-Inspector on 19.9.2011 and the petitioner had disclosed that he was already released on bail by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh and he did not offer any apology for the said misconduct on his part, this Court by order dated 30.9.2011 rejected the show cause filed by Mr. Jalandhar Jally, I.I.C., Khuntuni and directed the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to enquiry into the matter and submit his report. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court inquired into the matter after giving opportunities to the parties to adduce evidence and submitted his report on 27.10.2011. However, the Registrar (Judicial) allowed the parties to adduce evidence which was not pleaded in the show cause filed by the I.I.C. before this Court on 28.9.2011, but to justify his action, he tried to supplement some documents before the Registrar (Judicial) who accepted all those documents while submitting his report for which this Court rejected the report submitted by the Registrar (Judicial) on 27.10.2011. 4. As the matter was of serious nature and Mr. Jalandhar Jally, I.I.C., Khuntuni Police Station obstructed the majestic flow of justice showing high handedness and took a person to custody in spite of his knowledge about the fact that the said person is on Court bail, this Court directed to supply a copy of the inquiry report to Mr. Jalandhar Jally, I.I.C., Khuntuni Police Station and give him a chance to file further show cause affidavit. He has filed a further affidavit on 15.11.2011 reiterating that on 22.9.2011 he reached Khuntuni Police Station and received the intimation at about 11 A.M. regarding the release of the person on bail by the Court and after receipt of the said intimation he allowed them to go from the police station. He had no knowledge till 22.9.2011 that the person had already surrendered and had been released on bail on 19.9.2011. He had taken the person to the police station for investigation on 21.9.2011. In the said affidavit, he has further stated that "To Err is human" and out of ignorance, he had taken the person. He might have committed some error during investigation of the aforesaid case. He had taken the person to the police station for investigation on 21.9.2011. In the said affidavit, he has further stated that "To Err is human" and out of ignorance, he had taken the person. He might have committed some error during investigation of the aforesaid case. He has highest regard for the Judiciary and offered unqualified apology for the mistake committed by him and also prayed to pardon him. 5. From the above facts, it appears that in the show cause affidavit filed by Mr. Jalandhar Jally, Inspector-in-charge, Khuntuni Police Station on 28.10.2011 at the first instance he had not offered any apology; rather he justified his action to be correct. In the second show cause, though he has offered the apology, he has not admitted his overt act and instead has stated that he might have committed some error. 6. The above facts and circumstances of the case and the affidavits so filed by Mr. Jalandhar Jally, I.I.C., Khuntuni Police Station, confirm his overt act and show the highhandedness of the police officer who is a member of the disciplined department. In a democratic country, he has restricted the freedom of a person who is already on bail. 7. On the above facts and circumstances, it is to be considered as to whether the aforesaid action of Mr. Jalandhar Jally, I.I.C., Khuntuni Police Station, adversely affects the administration of Justice. 8. The law is well settled that whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice and it is brought to the notice of the Court, in such premises the Court will exercise its jurisdiction to uphold the dignity of the Court. The Court's jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of Court. It is not only the power but also the duty of the Court to uphold and maintain the dignity of Court and the majesty of law. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that anyone who intends to tarnish the image of the Judiciary should not be allowed to go unpunished. 9. In the present case, the action of Mr. Jalandhar Jally, Inspector-cum-charge, Khuntuni Police Station primarily signifies disrespect to that which is entitled to legal regard. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that anyone who intends to tarnish the image of the Judiciary should not be allowed to go unpunished. 9. In the present case, the action of Mr. Jalandhar Jally, Inspector-cum-charge, Khuntuni Police Station primarily signifies disrespect to that which is entitled to legal regard. Majesty of Law continues to hold its head high notwithstanding such scurrilous attacks made by persons who feel that the law Courts will observe anything and everything. Judiciary is the bedrock and handmade of democracy. If people lose faith in justice parted by a Court of law, the entire democratic set up would crumble down. 10. Considering the above position, this Court is of the view that the conduct of Mr. Jalandhar Jally, I.I.C., Khuntuni Police Station makes it clear that his action is in disregard to the Court's order. Therefore, this Court holds him guilty, as at the first instance he had not offered unconditional apology and apology offered by him in his second affidavit is not genuine, as "justification" and "apology" cannot go together. That apart, he has stated that he might have committed some error during investigation. An apology is not a weapon to purge the guilt; it is merely meant to serve as an evidence of real contrition. 11. Accordingly, while holding Mr. Jalandhar Jally, Inspector-in-charge, Khuntuni Police Station guilty for violation of the Court's order, this Court does not propose to impose any punishment on him and defers it for a period of one year from today and directs him to furnish a personal bond to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in course of the day undertaking to maintain good conduct and not to repeat such act which he has committed. In case he maintain orderly, good, decent and disciplined behaviour during the aforesaid period, the rules shall stand discharged on expiry of the period of one year. In case he repeats such action, the same will tantamount to contempt of Court and he shall be called upon to appear before this Court to receive the sentence. The misc. case is accordingly disposed of. The Station Diary Book of Khuntuni Police Station with effect from 12.9.2011 to 9.10.2011 and the Received Registrar of the said Police Station for the year 2011 be returned to Mr. Jally, IIC, Khuntuni Police Station immediately on proper receipt. Misc. case disposed of.