Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 179 (MP)

IN REFERENCE v. BAL KRISHNA SHUKLA

2015-02-09

AJIT SINGH, ALOK ARADHE

body2015
JUDGMENT : ALOK ARADHE, J. 1. This proceeding was directed to be registered vide order dated 15-10-2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court under section 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the basis of a memo sent by Additional Civil Judge Class II, Satna. 2. Facts leading to registration of the case briefly stated are that Civil Suit No. 19-A/2007 was pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Satna. On 2-4-2008, the contemner was being cross-examined by Mr. Rajesh Chaturvedi, Counsel for the plaintiff. During the course of cross-examination, the contemner got excited and slapped the Counsel while standing in the witness box. By the time, the clerk of the Court and other staff tried to stop the contemner took out his footwear and hit the Counsel on his head with it. Thereupon, the trial Court issued notice to the contemner to show cause as to why the proceeding for contempt be not initiated against him. The contemner submitted his reply on 2-5-2008, which was not found satisfactory. Thereupon, the trial Court made a reference to the Registrar General of this Court and a Division Bench of this Court as stated supra vide order dated 15-10-2008 directed the proceeding to be registered under section 15 (2) of the Act. 3. The contemner filed reply, in which, it was stated that the Counsel for the plaintiff used filthy language and slapped the contemner, therefore, the contemner caught hand of the Counsel by way of self defence only. It was also stated that the case has been foisted upon the contemner at the instance of the Counsel for the plaintiff taking advantage of his position and power. It is further stated that the contemner has highest regards for the Court and he cannot dare to act in the manner alleged against the him and has tendered unconditional apology. 4. A Division Bench of this Court considered the reply filed on behalf of the contemner and after hearing the arguments of the Counsel for contemner, by order dated 10-9-2012 held that prima facie case for criminal contempt is made out and charge was framed against him. The District and Sessions Judge, Satna was directed to record evidence with regard to charge and submit report, pursuant to which, the evidence was recorded by the District and Sessions Judge, Satna. The District and Sessions Judge, Satna was directed to record evidence with regard to charge and submit report, pursuant to which, the evidence was recorded by the District and Sessions Judge, Satna. Thereafter, by order dated 9-7-2013 the copy of report was directed to be supplied to the contemner, and the contemner was granted liberty to submit an objection, if any. However, no objection was filed by the contemner. 5. Learned Counsel for the contemner during the course of submissions reiterated the stand taken by the contemner in the reply and justified the conduct of the contemner. It was further pointed out that the contemner is driver and a poor person, therefore, he may be discharged from the proceeding. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the contemner and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Autar Shukla vs. Arvind Shukla, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 130, after taking note of the decision in the case of R. vs. Machin, (1980) 3 All ER 151, held that if the act complained of substantially interferes with or tends to interfere with the broad stream of administration of justice it would be punishable under the Act. If the act complained of undermines the prestige of the Court or causes hindrance in the discharge of due course of justice or tends to obstruct the course of justice or interfere with due course of justice, it is sufficient that the conduct complained of constitutes contempt of Court and liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. In the case of Dr. D. C. Saxena vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216 , it has been held that any act, which undermine or tends to undermine peoples confidence in the administration of justice and bringing or tending to bring the Court into disrepute or disrespect tantamount to criminal contempt. It has further been held that punishment for the contempt intended to prevent undue interference with administration of justice. It is well-settled in law that sanctity of law sustained through dignity of Courts cannot be marred by errant behaviour by Counsel, litigant and even a Judge. It has further been held that punishment for the contempt intended to prevent undue interference with administration of justice. It is well-settled in law that sanctity of law sustained through dignity of Courts cannot be marred by errant behaviour by Counsel, litigant and even a Judge. It is well-settled legal proposition that unconditional apology should be prompt and genuine and must not be used as weapon of defence but should be unquestionable in sincerity and tempered with sense of genuineness, remorse and repentance and should not be used as calculated strategy to avoid punishment See : Arun Kumar Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 14 SCC 127 and Bal Kishan Giri vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 7 SCC 280 . 7. In the backdrop of well-settled legal position, facts of the case may be seen. The District and Sessions Judge, Satna, during the course of enquiry has recorded the evidence of P.W. 1, namely, Rajni Gangade, Advocate. She in her evidence has stated that contemner had slapped Mr. Rajesh Chaturvedi, Advocate and had also hit the Counsel with footwear. Nand Kumar Kushwaha another Counsel who has been examined as P.W. 5 in his evidence has stated that contemner abused and slapped the Counsel for plaintiff. Similarly, Ganesh Prasad Sen, Advocate (P.W. 6) has also supported the version of Nand Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. Yogesh Singh, Court Moharir (P.W. 7) has stated in his evidence that contemner had abused the Counsel and had taken out his footwear. The complainant-Rajesh Chaturvedi in his evidence has stated that contemner had abused him and had hit him with footwear. The evidence of Presiding Officer, namely, P. K. Singh, Civil Judge Class II has also been recorded by the District and Sessions Judge, Satna, who in his evidence, has stated that the contemner had slapped the Counsel and had hit him with footwear on his head. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the statements of the Counsel namely Rajni Gangade (P.W. 1), Nand Kumar Kushwaha (P.W. 5), Ganesh Prasad Sen (P.W. 6), who in categorical terms have stated that contemner had slapped the Counsel and had also hit the Counsel with footwear. Similarly, we also do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the Presiding Officer namely Mr. Similarly, we also do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the Presiding Officer namely Mr. P. K. Singh, Civil Judge, Class II, who also in his evidence has stated that contemner had slapped the Counsel and had hit him with footwear on his head. 8. The judicial proceeding has its own sanctity and neither the Counsel nor the litigant can be permitted to behave in a manner, which adversely affects the sanctity of a judicial proceeding. In the facts of the case, we find the conduct of the respondent shocking and the dignity of the Court cannot be permitted to be marred by an errant behaviour of the contemner. The act of the contemner undermines the prestige of the Court and had caused hindrance in the discharge of due course of justice, which in our opinion, constitutes contempt of Court, for which the contemner is liable to be punished. We, accordingly, hold the contemner guilty of committing contempt of Court. We now post the matter on 9-2-2015 for hearing the contemner on the question of imposition of sentence. Heard the contemnor on the question of sentence. When a query was put to the contemnor with regard to his employment he stated that he is employed as a driver and has a daughter aged about 5 years. He further states that if he is sent to jail his illiterate wife and minor daughter would suffer. We having regard to the conduct of contemnor and in the facts of the case deem it appropriate to impose the sentence of imprisonment of "till the rising of the Court" and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, which shall be deposited by the contemnor in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna within a period of one month from today and in case of default in payment of fine amount, the contemnor shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.