Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 615 (MP)

In Reference v. Ajay@Guddu

2011-05-19

KRISHN KUMAR LAHOTI, SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
ORDER Smt. Sushma Shrivastava, J. 1. This is a reference made by Ms. Vibhavari Joshi, Special Judge, Chhindwara for initiating, contempt proceedings against Ajay @ Guddu, who hurled faecal matter on her dias in the course of judicial proceedings. 2. Respondent. Ajay @ Guddu is facing criminal trial in the court of Special Judge, Chhindwara under Section 302 of I.P.C. in special Case No. 66/07 as well as under Sections 365/34, 366/34, 506, 376(1), 323 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,.1989 in special case No. 45/10. On 28.01.2011, the aforesaid two cases were fixed for recording of evidence and respondent/accused Ajay @ Guddu was produced in custody from the lock-up before the Special Judge, Chhindwara by constable No. 451 Ajay Kumar and constable No. 65 Bhurasingh. After the recording of evidence was over in both the special cases, respondent signed on the order sheets at the table of the execution clerk, and while leaving the court at about 12:55 P.M., he threw a plastic packet, full of night soil on the dias of the judge, which scattered on her coat, dias, computer and the files kept on the dias, causing interference in the judicial proceedings. The reference/ complaint was, therefore, made by Ms. Vibhavari Joshi, Special Judge, Chhindwara through District and Sessions Judge, Chhindwara to the High Court, which has been registered as contempt petition. 3. We issued show cause notice to contemner Ajay @ Guddu, as also to two constables Ajay Kumar and Bhurasingh, who escorted respondent Ajay @ Guddu in custody to the court and permitted him to carry the night soil with him, to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them. 4. In response to show cause notice, contemnerAjay @ Guddu filed an affidavit before this court and tendered unconditional apology for his act. It was also submitted by him in the affidavit that he had no intention of committing any contempt or bring disrepute to the court and was unaware of the consequences of his act. It was also submitted that he was under the impression that his counsel was not taking interest in his two criminal cases and due to mental sickness and frustration, he committed the act causing interruption in the judicial proceedings. 5. It was also submitted that he was under the impression that his counsel was not taking interest in his two criminal cases and due to mental sickness and frustration, he committed the act causing interruption in the judicial proceedings. 5. In response to show cause notice, the two constables namely, Ajay Kumar and Bhurasingh made appearance before this court and filed reply to show cause notice supported by their respective affidavits. It has. been submitted by them that as per instructions of Head Constable Chhiteshwar Singh, they had taken accused Ajay @ Guddu in custody from the Rupkari Cell, searched him and produced him in the court and did not allow him to meet anybody except his lawyer in front of the court room for a minute. They also took him to put his. signatures on the order sheets before the clerk and while coming outside from the court room, the incident occurred. According to constables Ajay Kumar and Bhurasingh, they were very careful and conscious while producing accused Ajay before the court and performed their duty carefully, they were not involved in the incident in any manner; there was big crowd in the court room and the space near the door was very narrow, the constables could not know how the incident occurred. They have, however, tendered unconditional apology before this court and submitted that they were also facing disciplinary proceedings in respect of the same incident and they be pardoned. 6. We have heard Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri B. D'Silva. learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the contemner as also contemner in person. We have also heard Constables Ajay Kumar and Bhurasingh and their learned counsel Shri S.K. Mishra. 7. Shri B. 'Silva, learned counsel for contemner Ajay @ Guddu submitted that contemner Ajay@ Guddu has realized his mistake and also assured in his affidavit that he would not repeat such act in future and has tendered unconditional apology. 8. Learned counsel appearing for constables Ajay Kumar and Bhurasingh also submitted that the two constables were not in any manner involved in the incident and they could not notice as to how the incident abruptly occurred and they should be pardoned, as they have tendered unconditional apology. 9. 8. Learned counsel appearing for constables Ajay Kumar and Bhurasingh also submitted that the two constables were not in any manner involved in the incident and they could not notice as to how the incident abruptly occurred and they should be pardoned, as they have tendered unconditional apology. 9. We have considered the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the averments made in the cotempt petition as well as the affidavit filed by contemner Ajay @ Guddu and the joint reply filed by constables Ajay Kumar and Bhurasingh, supported, by their respective affidavits. We find that in his affidavit, contemner Ajay @ Guddu has virtually admitted that be committed the loathsome act complained of, though he has taken a plea that due to frustration and mental sickness, he committed such an act and he tendered unconditional apology for the act committed by him. 10. The averments made in the contempt petition/complaint made by Ms. Vibhawari Joshi, Special Judge, Chhindwara clearly reveal that contemner Ajay @ Guddu was produced in custody in her court by two constables, Ajay Kumar and Bhurasingh, in two special criminal.cases, in which evidence was to be recorded. It is clearly borne out from the contents of the complaint made by Ms. Vibhawari Joshi, Special Judge, Chhindwara that she was hearing the two special criminal cases against the contemner/accused, in which she also recorded the evidence and while leaving the court room, contemner Ajay @ Guddu hurled a polythene packet, full of faucal matter/night soil on the dias, in the course of judicial proceedings, which was scattered on her coat, files and other articles, kept on the dias. Such an incident was bound to cause interference and interruption in the judicial proceedings. 11. We have, no manner of doubt to suspect the correctness of the contents of the complaint made by judicial officer Ms. Vibhawari Joshi, which are also not countered by contemner Ajay @ Guddu in his affidavit filed before this court. The contents and averments made in the contempt petition/complaint by judicial officer per se indicate that contemner. Ajay @ Guddu committed a loathsome act of hurling faecal matter/night soil on the dias of the judge in the course of Judicial proceedings and thereby caused obstruction and interference in the judicial proceedings and thus committed criminal contempt. 12. The contents and averments made in the contempt petition/complaint by judicial officer per se indicate that contemner. Ajay @ Guddu committed a loathsome act of hurling faecal matter/night soil on the dias of the judge in the course of Judicial proceedings and thereby caused obstruction and interference in the judicial proceedings and thus committed criminal contempt. 12. Criminal contempt is defined under Section 2(c) as under: - 2(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- (d) 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 or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. 13. Thus, the loathsome act of throwing faecal matter on the dias of the judicial officer in the course of judicial proceedings, committed by contemner Ajay @ Guddu, clearly comes within the preview of criminal contempt. Looking to the nature of his act, we decline to accept his unconditional apology for the act committed by him. We, therefore, find him guilty for committing criminal contempt of court and Sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 14. As regards the act and conduct of the two constables Ajay Kumar and Bhurasingh, though they have pleaded innocence and ignorance, and consciousness towards their duty, but it is beyond perception that a person in custody, would throw the night soil on the dias of a judge, without carrying it with him which nullifies the stand taken by two constables that they searched and checked contemner Ajay @ Guddu before producing him before the court. Be that as it may, the two constables, who escorted the accused/ contemner from the lock up to the court room, who committed a repulsive act in the court room, deserve a warning for being careful in future. With the aforesaid warning, the contempt proceedings against the aforesaid two constables are closed. 15. Contermner Ajay @ Guddu is, however, directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for committing criminal contempt of court. 16. Contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.