Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 795 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Surendra Sharma

2014-07-21

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2014
JUDGMENT : DHARNIDHAR JHA, J. Heard. 2. Title Appeal No.37/2001 was pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd, Patna City for adjudication. The argument for the appellant was heard on 06.06.2012 and the appeal was adjourned to 13.06.2012 for the argument of the respondent, on which date a petition was filed on behalf of the respondent. That petition was disallowed and the appeal was fixed for hearing argument of the respondent on 19.06.2012. The learned Judge, who was presiding over the court of Additional District Judge, 3rd, Patna City, received an envelope on 14.06.2012 from the respondent of the case, i.e., the present respondent-contemnor Surendra Prasad Sharma. It was a copy of the letter addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court. It contained scurrilously serious allegations which was not only contemptuous but were disparaging and derogatory imputations personally against the learned Judge who was presiding over the court. The letter addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, which is placed at page 7 of the present case requested the Hon’ble the Chief Justice to transfer Title Appeal No.37/2001 from Additional District Judge, 3rd, Patna City to any other court and, as may appear from the contents of that letter dated 13.06.2012, the respondent contemnor alleged that the learned Judge had received bribe of Rs. 6 lacs for deciding the case in favour of the appellant and further alleged that the learned Judge was partisan in as much as he had, after imposing a cost of Rs. 500/- against the appellant had written off half of the amount to show his impartiality to the contemnor. Personal imputations, like the learned Judge had poor knowledge of law, was made and it was alleged that the learned Judge was bent upon altering the judgment of the trial court in title appeal aforesaid only on account of having received the bribe money. While making imputations, which was both contemptuous and damaging to the integrity and personality of the Judge, the contemnor-respondent was touching upon the facts and documents of the case as if he were the only law literate in the society who had the onerous task of unveiling the corruption in the judiciary. 3. While making imputations, which was both contemptuous and damaging to the integrity and personality of the Judge, the contemnor-respondent was touching upon the facts and documents of the case as if he were the only law literate in the society who had the onerous task of unveiling the corruption in the judiciary. 3. It appears that on receipt of the letter, the learned Judge issued a notice to show-cause to the respondent-contemnor by initiating an inquiry under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act and that notice in English dated 4.07.2012 appears at page 9 of the present proceedings. On receipt of the notice in English, which was sent by letter no.194 dated 4.07.2012, the present contemnor-respondent responded to it and stated by filing an application dated 9.07.2012, which is at page 12 of the present brief, for furnishing the notice in Hindi as he did not know English and as such, he was not in a position to respond to the contents of the notice. Accordingly, Hindi version of the notice was served upon the respondent-contemnor and he filed his show-cause, which appears at page 14 of the present brief. The show-cause dated 25.07.2012 and the contents of the show cause were supported by an affidavit sworn by the respondent-contemnor before the Notary Public. 4. What appears from the perusal of the show-cause filed by the present contemnor-respondent was that if something was lesser as in terms of the contumaciousness that was supplemented by the show-cause filed by the present respondent before the learned Enquiring Judge. The contemnor-respondent was alleging that the learned Judge had entered into a conspiracy so as to gagging his voice against the corrupt acts of a Judge and had probably applied an unlawful method of shutting his voice out and as such, the notice had been served upon him. He was justifying the words which had been used in the previous letter dated 13.06.2012 addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and was further stating that it was the truth which was spoken and written by him. The only purpose of holding inquiry and serving the notice was to gag his voice. He was justifying the words which had been used in the previous letter dated 13.06.2012 addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and was further stating that it was the truth which was spoken and written by him. The only purpose of holding inquiry and serving the notice was to gag his voice. Not only the above but in the closing paragraph of the show-cause, the contemnor was also making statement so as to putting pressure upon the learned Judge, who was holding the inquiry under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act so that the title appeal noted above could be transferred by him to any another court. It was stated by him that because the respondent-contemnor had filed an application addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and also because he had filed a transfer application before the District Judge, it was in the fitness of things that the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Patna City had transferred Title Appeal No.37/2001 to any other court. Thus, the real intention and the design behind the letter addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice or filing of the application by way of showing cause by him was to divest the learned Judge from hearing the title appeal. While so doing, he was still hurling the same scurrilously contemptuous words so as to denigrating the learned Judge by making personal attacks upon him as regards knowledge of law and his integrity of functioning as a Judge of a court. 5. The learned Judge held an inquiry in which the contemnor-respondent had full participation. The inquiry order was drawn up on 30.08.2012 and the facts constituting the contempt of the court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Patna City, Patna were appropriately noticed by the learned Judge in that order, which forms part of the present contempt proceeding and which is the basis of making a reference for initiating appropriate contempt proceedings against the respondent-contemnor. It appears that the Registry of the Court placed the reference and the present proceedings was initiated by issuing fresh notice to the respondent-contemnor who was served copies of all relevant records or documents upon which he filed his show-cause. 6. It appears that the Registry of the Court placed the reference and the present proceedings was initiated by issuing fresh notice to the respondent-contemnor who was served copies of all relevant records or documents upon which he filed his show-cause. 6. During the hearing of the present proceeding Smt. Veena Rani Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent attempted to justify the writing of the letter dated 13.06.2012 to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and was in that connection referring to certain dates on which some orders had been passed in the original title suit, i.e., Title Eviction Suit No.42/1985 and another Title Suit No.37/1985 besides Title Appeal No.37/2001. It was pointed out by us to the learned counsel for the respondent-contemnor that we were not judging the orders passed in the above-noted title suits/appeal. This Court was required to decide as to whether the written statements of the respondent-contemnor constituted contempt of the court of learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Patna City and whether it was within the competence of this Court to hear the present proceeding and pass an appropriate order if the acts complained of stood established. Smt. Prasad did not dispute that this Court was competent to take up the present contempt proceeding after cognizance of the acts was taken by it on the basis of reference made by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Patna City after completion of full-fledged inquiry under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act and was submitting that the respondent was the solitary male member of his house with his old mother and this Court should show mercy and magnanimity in accepting his apology, which was tendered by him in his show-cause filed on 17.07.2013. We want to point out that acceptance of apology could be a part of the proceeding only when the Court had, first, decided as to whether the contemnor had indeed indulged into the commission of any contumacious acts which constituted the contempt either of this Court or of a court subordinate to it. The acceptance or non-acceptance of the apology sought by the contemnor could depend on other circumstances of the case as well. 7. The acceptance or non-acceptance of the apology sought by the contemnor could depend on other circumstances of the case as well. 7. What this Court is concerned about is that the words written by the respondent-contemnor were not only alleging misconduct on the part of a Judge who was presiding over the court, but was demeaning him by making scurrilously scandalizing personal attack upon him. The attack was not only serious but it was scurrilous and categorically personal so much so that it did not leave any manner of doubt that the contemnor had indeed meant to personally attack the Judge, in such a manner as to demoralizing him to force him to part with the record of the case which was taken up for hearing. The Supreme Court recently in the case of Vishram Singh Raghubanshi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 776 was considering the growing trend in the litigants and advocate of vilifying the Judges of the lower court so as to denigrating and demoralizing them in order to obstructing them in discharging their judicial functions. The relevant observations regarding the above trend and the duty of the High Court in that regard appear in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Judgment, which is the extracted observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Judicial Service Assn. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1991) 4 SCC 406 and E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad Vs. T. Narayanan Nambiar reported in AIR 1970 SC 2015 . We are tempted to extract the two paragraphs with paragraph 17 of the judgment in Vishram Singh Raghubanshi, which are as follows : “15. In Delhi Judicial Service Assn. V. State of Gujarat this Court held that : (SCC p.458, Para 43) “43….The power to punish contempt is vested in the Judges not for their personal protection only, but for the protection of public justice, whose interest requires that decency and decorum is preserved in courts of justice. Those who have to discharge duty in a court of justice are protected by the law, and shielded in the discharge of their duties; any deliberate interference with the discharge of such duties either in court or outside the court by attacking the presiding officers of the court, would amount to criminal contempt and the courts must take serious cognizance of such conduct” 16. In E.M. Sankaran Namboordripad vs. T. Narayanan Nambiar this Court observed that contempt of court is of various kinds e.g. insult to Judges; attacks upon them; comment on pending proceedings with a tendency to prejudice fair trial; obstruction to officers of courts, witnesses or the parties; scandalizing the Judges or the courts; conduct of a person which tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard. Such acts bring the court into disrepute or disrespect or which offend its dignity, affront its majesty or challenge its authority. In a given case, such a conduct (sic may) be committed “in respect of the whole of the judiciary or judicial system”. The Court rejected the argument that in particular circumstances conduct of the alleged contemnor may be protected by Article 19 (I) (a) of the Constitution i.e. right to freedom of speech and expression, observing that the words of the second clause of the same provision bring any existing law into operation, thus provisions of the 1971 Act would come into play and each case is to be examined on its own facts and the decision must be reached in the context of what was done or said. 17. Thus, it is apparent that the contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the law courts and the image of such majesty in the minds of the public cannot be allowed to be distorted. Any action taken on contempt or punishment enforced is aimed at protection of the freedom of individuals and orderly and equal administration of laws and not for the purpose of providing immunity from criticism to the Judges. The superior courts have a duty to protect the reputation of judicial officers of subordinate courts, taking note of the growing tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by unscrupulous practicing advocates who either fail to secure desired orders or do not succeed in browbeating for achieving ulterior purpose. Such an issue touches upon the independence of not only the judicial officers but brings the question of protecting the reputation of the institution as a whole”. 8. Such an issue touches upon the independence of not only the judicial officers but brings the question of protecting the reputation of the institution as a whole”. 8. Thus, what appears from the above observations of the Supreme Court is that not only the courts which are competent to deal with acts of contempt which was committed in respect of the Judges of the lower courts, have to handle and decide such cases, but they have also to be alive to the situation that the Judges manning the subordinate judiciary are also extended full protection and independence in discharging their judicial functions. If a Judge is pressurized by being sent letters which contain accusations of partiality and clear instances of personal attack, as appears done by the present contemnor, no Judge could be functioning with courage and independence in discharging his judicial function as is required of him in the hierarchy of system in imparting justice. We have already noted that while writing the letter to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, a copy of it was purposely transmitted to the learned 3rd Additional District Judge to make personal allegations, the underlying attempt of which was more serious, which was to denigrate and demoralize the learned Judge to such an extent that he would have parted with Title Appeal No.37/2001 by writing to the District Judge for the transfer of the said appeal from his file to any other court. It could not be said that it was done in order to criticizing the system with honest intention. In fact, it was a well designed act targeted at the Judge and the institution both, so as to vilifying them and not to allow him to discharge his judicial functions with independence. This was evident from the words which were chosen by the contemnor in his show-cause dated 25.07.2012 in which he was further accusing the learned Judge of entering into a conspiracy (probably with the appellant) in issuing the notice for holding inquiry as regards the acts of contempt committed by the respondent and thus, making serious attempt of gagging his voice. Not only that, he was further alleging that filing of Misc. Not only that, he was further alleging that filing of Misc. Transfer Application No.172/2012 by him before the District Judge, Patna was also one of the reasons for the annoyance of the learned Judge for issuing the notice to him with the only motive of shutting out his voice which was being raised by the contemnor against corruption, and lastly, what the contemnor was doing indeed was reflected in the last paragraph of his application showing the cause to the enquiring officer when he stated that the learned 3rd Additional District Judge ought to have taken steps himself for transfer of the title appeal from his file to any other court. Thus, we find that not only the attack was personal against the Judge as regards his integrity and sufficiency of knowledge of law, but the allegations were designed in such a way as not to allow the Judge to impart justice. The allegations and statements were not only scandalizing the court but were pressuring the court not to decide a case. The allegations further exhibited the serious intention and attempt both of the contemnor to obstruct the fair course of justice by making personal attack against the Judge and thus, was a clear contumacious act which did not only undermined the authority of the court but also simultaneously scandalized the court which acts definitely constituted a criminal contempt of the court of III Additional District Judge, Patna City as defined by Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 9. After having perused the connected papers which are the evidence of the acts of contempt committed by the contemnor, we are very much clear in holding the contemnor guilty of committing the contempt of the court of learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Patna City, Patna. 10. While perusing the papers of the present case what we found was that the contemnor was designing his allegations and was repeating it time and again, whenever he found an occasion to reiterate them before the Presiding Officer of the court, who was holding enquiry under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The personal attack notwithstanding, the attempt of the contemnor was to obstruct a Judge from taking up a proceeding for hearing and delivering a judgment fearlessly and independently and thus to succeed in his attempt to thwart the course of justice. The personal attack notwithstanding, the attempt of the contemnor was to obstruct a Judge from taking up a proceeding for hearing and delivering a judgment fearlessly and independently and thus to succeed in his attempt to thwart the course of justice. What appeared further to us from the application showing causes filed before the enquiring Judge was that further allegations were made against the fairness of the Judge as also against his integrity. The fairness of the Judge was attacked when the contemnor was writing to him directly in his show-cause that he had entered into some sort of conspiracy so as to gagging the voice of the contemnor and the better course for the learned Judge would have been, advised the contemnor, that he would have parted with the case. Taking these aspects of the matter, in our view, we reject the apology which was tendered by the contemnor, for, we find that the tendering of apology was not coming from the core of the heart of the contemnor neither it showed that the contemnor was indeed repentant and remorseful after having realized the seriousness of his act. To us it appeared a mere ploy to get away with it after having committed the acts of contempt. 11. Now the question is as to what sentence be passed upon the contemnor for the contemptuous act committed by him. Leniency in sentence is the rule, but showing leniency here may sabotage and torpedo the whole justicing system in the name of raising voice against corruption which appears not only palpably designed but designed nefariously. In our opinion, a simple sentence of imprisonment for six months could be appropriate so as to citing an example to others that no such unscrupulous person like the contemnor could dare indulge in it. He is sentenced, accordingly, to simple imprisonment for six months for the proved act of contempt committed by him. 12. The contemnor is present in the court room. Let him be produced before the Registrar General of the Court, who shall authorize his detention by issuing a warrant addressed to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Beur, Patna. The proceedings stands disposed of in the above terms.