Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 987 (HP)

Kamal Kishore v. State of H. P.

2018-05-25

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed, against, the order of imposition of the fine, upon, the appellant, pronounced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Case No. 24-ASJ-II/4 of 2018, for his committing an offence, punishable under Section 228, of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid order would be validated by this Court, only, when, the apt procedure prescribed under Sections 345 of the code of Criminal Procedure, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, visibly begets satiation: “345. Procedure in certain cases of contempt:- (1) When any such offence as is described in Section 175, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may, at any time before the arising of the Court on the same day, take cognizance of the offence and, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished under this section, sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid. (2) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender as well as the finding and sentence. (3) If the offence is under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and the nature of the interruption or insult.” 2. (3) If the offence is under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and the nature of the interruption or insult.” 2. Even, though, a reading of the afore extracted provisions, borne, in Section 345 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court concerned, to, upon an offence borne, in, Section 228 IPC, being prima facie committed, by the offender concerned, to, hence, during the course of the day, whereat, the offence is purportedly committed, to take cognizance thereon, (i) yet, the further mandate engrafted therein qua the Court being also enjoined, to, afford a reasonable opportunity, to, the offender concerned, in showing cause, the, reason, for the punishment being not visited upon him, for his allegedly committing an offence punishable under Section 228 IPC, also enjoins evident meteing, of, completest adherence thereto. 3. Even though, taking of cognizance, by the, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, on the very date, when the alleged offence, was, committed is within the domain of Section 345 Cr.P.C. (i) yet, within the apt mandate engrafted, in, the provisions of Section 345 Cr.P.C. a reasonable opportunity was also enjoined to be afforded, to, the offender, by the Court concerned, (ii) mandate whereof appears to be infracted, by, the learned Court concerned, (iii) infraction whereof, arises, from the factum, of, directions being meted, to the offender, to, hence during the course of the day rather furnish his reply, to, the apposite show cause notice. The affording, of, a reasonable opportunity to the offender concerned, by the Court, does enjoin upon the Court concerned, to hence afford him a reasonable time, within which, he may furnish an appropriate valid reason, for his alleged penal dereliction. Furthermore, the connotation, of, the apt aforesaid phrase, is, of its also encapsulating, an apt opportunity, being afforded to the offender, to, in consonance with, his reply, to the show cause notice hence also adduce evidence in support thereof. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, has, apart, from giving the shortest possible time, to the appellant, to reply to the show cause notice, also, has thereafter rejected it, without, affording an opportunity to the appellant, to adduce his apt evidence rather hence has infracted, the, aforesaid connotation, borne by the phrase to afford a reasonable opportunity. 4. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, has, apart, from giving the shortest possible time, to the appellant, to reply to the show cause notice, also, has thereafter rejected it, without, affording an opportunity to the appellant, to adduce his apt evidence rather hence has infracted, the, aforesaid connotation, borne by the phrase to afford a reasonable opportunity. 4. In view of the above discussion, I find merit in this appeal which is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the learned trial Court stands reversed and set aside. Accordingly, the respondent/accused stands acquitted. All pending applications also disposed of accordingly.