1. This contempt proceeding relates to an unfortunate incident, which had taken place in the courtroom and chambers of Sri D.N. Barai, 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge at Bhagalpur on 18.11.1997, when several police officials in pre-planned and calculated manner had made murderous attack on him.
2. Since admittedly the incident had undermined the dignity of Courts of the whole country, Judicial officers, Judges, Lawyers and Organisations like Bar Council of India, the Bihar State Bar Council, Judicial Officers' Association & Advocate Associations, including lawyers of the High Court felt insecured and humiliated. It would appear from various affidavits and newspapers that the State Government, the Chief Secretary, the Director General of Police, and other various organisations of the State had also condemned this unfortunate and unprecedented incident. We fully appreciate the sentiment and reaction of the lawyers and different authorities, as noticed above. Because for any civilised and law-abiding citizen, such a reaction is quite natural. Undisputedly for the first time the Courts have noticed such unruly criminal act, when a judge was attacked and assaulted in his courtroom and Chambers, by those who have taken oath to maintain law and order and to protect every law abiding citizen from any illegal act. Perhaps such criminal act has never been done by hardcore criminals and terrorists even at the time when death penalties are awarded by the Judges.
3. There cannot be any dispute, if the judiciary is to perform its duty and functions in free and fair manner, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected at al lstages, failing which the very constitutional scheme and public faith to the judiciary will disappear. In order to maintain the rule of law and to protect the interest of a civilised society, the role of judiciary cannot be undermined. The Constitution, having recognised the onerous duty of the Courts, has entrusted with extra-ordinary powers to punish those, who end to do something to undermine the authority of the Courts. It is in these backdrops the Apex Court through various decisions has held that foundation of the judiciary is the trust and confidence of the people of this nation. Therefore, when such a foundation |s shaken, by means of any disrespect to the authority of the Court, creating distrust, the entire system gets eroded.
4. On 18.11.1997, the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, submitted a report to the Registrar General of this Court, indicating the manner of the occurrence and names of some of the police officials who according to him, had taken active part in the incident. But before elaborating the details of the incident, it would be advisable to state few. facts, which admittedly gave rise to the occurrence on 18.11.1997.
5. It appears in Sessions Trial No. 592 of 1992, the Investigating Officer (Jokhu Singh) was examined as witness on 7.5.1997 before Sri D.N. Barai, 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur. The next date for his cross-examination was fixed 26.5.1997. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to several dates, but this witness did not appear for cross-examination. A show cause notice was issued against Jokhu Singh through Superintendent of Police, Madhepura, asking him to appear on the next date i.e. 11.6.1997. But in spite of that, when he did not appear, on 14.7.1997 a wireless message was communicated to him through Superintendent of Police, adjourning the case to 5.8.1997, for his appearance, but unfortunately, the witness did not turn up. The Court, therefore, having no other option, issued notice asking Mr. Jokhu Singh to show cause why a proceeding for contempt be not initiated and the next date fixed was 27.8.1997, but he did not appear. Ultimately, on 27.8.1997, a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued, fixing 20.9.1997 for his appearance. But on that date, also this witness did not turn up nor filed any show cause. Thereafter, the case was fixed for 24.11.1997. However, on 17.11.1997, when Jokhu Sigh appeared, the Court, having regard to the previous order of non-bailable warrant of arrest, remanded him to judicial custody. A petition for bail was filed on his behalf, but after the Court hours. Hence it was directed to be placed on the next date.
6. On 18.11.1997, when the bail petition of Jokhu Singh was taken up, the learned Counsel appearing on his behalf made a prayer for withdrawal of the petition. Accordingly, the said application was' dismissed, as withdrawn. Soon thereafter, a large number of Police officers, armed with Lathi and other weapons and shouting slogans against Mr. Barai, rushed to his courtroom. Though the Court peon Bishundeo Sharma tried to shut the door, he was brutally assaulted. Mr. Barai apprehending danger of his life, rushed to the Chambers and managed to bolt the door. But unfortunately, the unruly mob forcibly broke open the door, overpowered his bodyguard and after assaulting Mr. Barai, started reiterating their demand for unconditional release of Jokhu Singh. In the meantime, due to manhandling and mounting pressure. Sri Barai felt dizziness and became unconscious. It has also come on record that due to timely arrival of a team of doctors, his life was saved.
7. The report further indicates that the police personnel after assaulting Mr. Barai and his Court staff, took away certain records and damaged the doors and grills of the gate. They also assaulted some of the lawyers and damaged their furnitures and motor vehicles parked inside the Court compound. In the report, names of police officials, who were identified by the Court' staff. Mr. Barai and lawyers, were also disclosed; They are (i) A. Natrajan, the then Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur (ii) Harihar Prasad Choudhary, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhaglpur, (iii) K.D. Choudhary, the then Inspector of Police, Kotwali P.S., (iv) Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, the then S.I., (v) Daroga Singh, the then S.I., (vi) P.K. Singh the then S.I., (vii) Rajib Ranjan Dayal alias Bhagat, the then S.I., (viii) Gurubachan Singh, the then S.I,, (ix) Krishna Ram the then Inspector of Police, (x) CD. Jha, the then A.S.I., (xi) Mr. K.N. Singh, the then Officer Incharge of Harijan P.S., Bhagalpur, and (xii) Ranjit Pandey, the then Sergeant. Major, Police Line, Bhagalpur (opp. parties No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 respectively).
8. It would further appear at the relevant time, since the District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, had gone to Banka for holding camp Court and Mr. Barai was not in a position to send any report, such a report was submitted by the 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge to this Court. But on the next day on return from Banka, the District Judge also enquired into the matter and submitted a detailed report (Flag-B).
9. Ultimately, on 19.11.1997 on the basis of the aforesaid report, this Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case was registered and placed before us for admission. Along with the said case, C.W.J.C. No. 10625 of 1997 filed on behalf of the Young Lawyers' Association, was also listed. We perused the report and after having heard the Chairman, Bihar State Bar Council, all the three Presidents of the High Court Associations and Advocate General, arrived at conclusion that a prima facie case of criminal contempt was made out against the contemners. We accordingly, initiated the proceeding against the above named persons and directed the Registry for issuance of notice with a copy of the report containing allegations against the concerned persons, calling upon them to show cause by 25.11.1997, as to why suitable order or orders for their punishment be not recorded for the alleged incident. We also directed the Chief Secretary and the Director Genera! of Police, to affirm affidavits regarding steps taken so far by the State Government in the matter relating to the incident.
10. On 25.11.1997, all the contemners appeared through their learned Advocates. But as some of them were not able to file detailed show cause, a prayer was made for some more time. We accepted their prayer to postponed the hearing to 10.12.1997, to enable them to file detailed show cause. But on behalf of the Chief Secretary, an affidavit was filed indicating that the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, after holding a detailed inquiry of the matter, has in his report, disclosed names of nine police officials, namely, (i) K.D. Choudhary, the then Officer Incharge, Kotwali, (ii) Ranjit Pandey, the then Sergeant Major, Bhagalpur, (iii) Ms. Shashilata Singh, the then S.I.,(iv) K.N. Singh, the then Thana Incharge, Harijan P.S., Bhagalpur, (v) Gurubachan Singh, the then S.I., (vi) Daroga Singh, the then S.I., (vii) Prem Kumar Singh, the then S.I., (Officer Incharge Kajraili), (viii) Rajeev Ranjan Bhagat, the then S.I. and (ix) CD. Jha, the then A.S.I., Bhagalpur (Opp. Party Nos. 3, 12, 4, 11, 8, 5, 6, 7, & 10 respectively). The learned Director General of Police, while condemning these police officials, has found them guilty for the alleged incident. It was also mentioned in the affidavit that the State Government acting on the basis of the report of the Director General of Police, had issued different orders, suspending all such officials from service. The affidavit further disclosed that having regard to the gravity of situation, a Commission of Inquiry was also set up under the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act.
11. However, Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate appearing or Opp. Party Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 submitted that all the contemners were now placed under suspension and are facing departmental proceedings. Besides the departmental proceedings, different criminal cases were also lodged against them. The State Government also after going through various reports of the local authorities, had already set up an inquiry commission. Therefore, it was proper for the Court to keep the contempt matter in abeyance until aforesaid proceedings are disposed of. We, however, after hearing the parties rejected the prayer of Mr. Singh, on that very day and pointed out that such a question was no longer res Integra, because the Apex Court from time to time in different cases like one in the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association v. The State of Gujarat and Ors. : 1991CriLJ3086 , has already held that pendency of a criminal case or judicial inquiry cannot be any bar to the continuance of a contempt proceeding. The contempt proceeding is to be carried out under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. We also pointed out that Courts have been specifically empowered under Sections 15 and 17 of the Act to take cognizance of criminal contempt in proper cases. Criminal cases are to be tried by a Magistrate or Judge as per the procedures prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The whole object of prescribing procedural modes of taking cognizance under Section 15 is to safeguard the valuable time of the High Court. Section 15(2) does not restrict power of the High Court to take cognizance of contempt of itself or of a subordinate Court on its own motion, it was also held that in summary proceedings, dealing with contempt matters, there is no scope to apply strictly the procedures prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act. The only duty of the Court in such matters is that interest of contemners are adequately safeguarded by giving them, ample opportunity of being heard, filing show cause or reply etc. in their defence. Reliance in this regard can also be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Basant Chandra Ghosh and others AIR 1960 Patna 430, and yet in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vinay Chandra Mishra : 1995CriLJ3994 .
12. It will also be apt to notice that in the case of Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh : 1992CriLJ1269 , the Apex Court answering more or less a similar question, held that High Court while dealing with a proceeding under Sections 15 and 17 of the Act, is required only to follow a procedure which is fair and meets essential requirements of natural justice, so that contemners may be aware of the charges levelled against them and be also given a reasonable opportunity to defend.
13. But before adjourning the proceeding to next date, and having noticed that all the contemners and their advocates were present and everybody was condemning the occurrence, we expressed our desire that some of the responsible officers like Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector of Police, Kotwali K.D. Choudhary and Sub-Inspector of Police Ms. Shashilata Singh and Sergeant Major of Police Line Ranjit Pandey (Opp. Party Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 12) should disclose details of occurrence, which had taken place in the civil Court premises on 18.11.1997 and if possible identify more names of such persons, who, according to them, had taken part at the time of occurrence.
14. We accordingly, recorded the statements of (i) A Natrajan, the then S.P., (ii) Harihar Choudhary, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, (iii) K.D. Choudhary, the then Inspector of Police, Kotwali, (iv) Ms. Shashilata Singh, the then S.I. and (v) Ranjeet Pandey, the then Sergeant Major, Bhagalpur (Opp. Parties No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 12 respectively) in presence of all the lawyers and directed the Registry to keep their statements in a sealed cover. In this statement, the Superintendent of Police fairly narrated part of the incident and identified certain more names, like 'Awadhesh Singh', 'Subodh Kumar Yadav' and 'Mr. Paswan', Vice president of the Association (Opp. parties No. 22, 23 and 24 respectively), who, according to him, had also taken part in the alleged assault. We accordingly, also issued notices to be served along with copies of relevant charges to the above-named persons, calling upon them to show cause why they be also not punished for the criminal contempt. We also directed the Superintendent of Police and other Opp. party Nos. 2, 3. 4, and., 12 to state all such facts in their additional or supplementary show cause on 'he next date.
15. On 10.12.1997, all the contemners appeared and filed additional or supplementary show cause. The Superintendent of Police in his supplementary show cause disclosed names of 14 more police officials and constables, who as per his inquiry, had also taken part along with the main persons named earlier. They are (i) Ram Suresh Singh 'Narala', Sub-Inspector of Police, (ii) Sriram Singh, A.S.I., (iii) Ram Rekha Pandey, S.I., (iv) Shiviji Singh, S.I., (v) B.N. Singh, A.S.I., Kotwali, (vi) Sukh Narain Sharma, S.I., (vii) D.D. Singh, Officer Incharge, Tatarpur (viii) Gopalji Prasad, S.I., (ix) Madhusudhan Sharma, O/C, Sultanganj P.S. (x) Awadhesh Singh, Constable, (xi) Subodh Kumar Yadav, Constable, (xii) Ram Prakash Paswan, Constable, (xiii) Dilip Ojha, Treasurer, Policemen's Association, Bhagalpur and (xiv) Anil Kumar Soren, General Secretary, Policemen's Association (Opp. Parties No. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 respectively).
16. Thereafter notices were also issued to the abovementioned persons along with copies of the report calling upon them to show cause by 8.1.1998 as to why they also be not proceeded with for the criminal contempt. We also directed the parties to serve copies of show cause, filed by different contemners and different affidavits, filed in support of the contempt to each of the party and reply thereto, if any, by 15.12.1997, provided not already served.
17. On 9.1.1998 all the contemners, including those 14 against whom notices were issued on 10.12.1997, appeared and filed show cause. At the same time, affidavits were also filed on behalf of Sri Barai, the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur and his staff, namely, R. Das and B Sharma and some of the lawyers of the Bhagalpur Court, namely, Mr. M.P. Singh, President Bar Association, Bhagalpur, Mr. Y.K. Rai, Secretary, Advocate Association Mr. N.K. Choudhary & Ors. Advocates, Mr. J.K. Gupta, Secretary, Bar Association, Mr. B.N. Mishra, Advocate and Mr. S.C. Pandey, Advocate. We having learnt that copies of some of the affidavits were not yet served to some of the parties, adjourned the matter to 16.1.1998, granting final time till 12.1.98 to the parties to serve copies of such affidavits and show cause to the learned Advocates appearing for different parties, if not at all served.
18. On 16.1.1998, all the learned Advocates fairly accepted that copies of all the materials (affidavits, show cause etc) brought on the record so far, were properly served to the learned Advocates appearing for the contemners and those, who were appearing to support the contempt proceeding. Thereafter, on our direction, Mr. Ram Chandra Jha, placed the reports of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, affidavits of Sri D.N. Barai and his staff, namely, R. Das and B. Sharma and affidavits of the President and Secretary, Bar Association, Bhagalpur, affidavits of other Advocates, who had seen the occurrence and the show cause of the Superintendent of Police, who had also given specific names of such contemners, who had taken active part at the time of unfortunate occurrence. Thereafter, show cause filed on behalf of different contemners were also placed before us, by their learned Advocates. We also heard all the learned Advocates appearing for different parties.
19. But before going to the rival contentions, it would be relevant to notice that some of contemners like Harihar Prasad Choudhary, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Opp. Party No. 2), K.D. Choudhary, Inspector of Police (Opp. Party No. 3) and few others, in order to justify resentment of Police personnels have indirectly tried to condemn the action taken by Sri D.N. Barai in the matter relating to arrest of Jokhu Singh and removal of stars from his uniform. The show cause of the Superintendent of Police also indicates that because of such steps taken by the Additional Judge, the Police Officers' Association led by K.D. Choudhary, on 17.12.1997 met the Inspector General (Prosecution) and the Zonal I.G. and protested against the arrest of Jokhu Singh and removal of stars. True it is that these contemners in their show cause have criticised the unfortunate incident and assault on the A.D.J. and his staff, but have denied that on 18.11.1997 they had taken part. Rather they have tried to show indirectly that steps taken by Mr. Barai was illegal and humiliating, therefore, this incident.
20. In our view, the contemners have failed to appreciate that having regard to the sequence of facts noticed above, no blame at all can be thrown against Mr. Barai, if he had passed an order for arrest of Jokhu Singh. Because already orders for warrant of arrest etc. were issued against him. This is also admitted that next date in that case as fixed for 24.11.997. It has also come in evidence that bail petition of Jokhu Singh was filed after Court hours. Therefore, there was nothing wrong if Mr. Jokhu Singh was remanded to custody. Rather it was plain and unqualified obligation of every person to obey such order unless and until it was discharged or set aside by a superior Court. It was none of the business of the contemners to see whether steps taken by Sri Barai was justified. Disobedience of such order as a general rule is contempt and punishable. Reference in this regard can usefully be made to the case of Hadkinson v. Hadkinson 1952 2 All E.R. 567 and Shri C.K. Daphtary, Sr. Advocate and Ors. v. Shri O.P. Gupta and Ors. : 1971CriLJ844 .
21. From the reports of the District Judge dated 19.11.1997, Vth Additional District Judge dated 18.11.1997, Director General of Police dated 21.11.1997 and affidavits of the S.P., the affidavits of Mr. Barai, A.D.J.I. the Dy. S.P. and the lawyers as well as the show cause filed on behalf of O.Ps, it has been established beyond any controversy that on 18.11.1997, Sri Barai was attacked and assaulted in his courtroom and chambers. This has also been established that while protecting Mr. Barai, his Bench Clerk and the Court peon were also assaulted. When some of the lawyers of Civil Court protested against such unruly behaviour of the police, they were also assaulted and their furnitures were destroyed. Undisputedly, as would appear from the show cause of the Superintendent of Police and the 'Ring leader' Sri K.D. Choudhary (Opp. party No. 3) that members of Bhagalpur Police Officials' Association were aggrieved because of the arrest of Jokhu Singh and removal of his stars. In the show cause, opposite party No. 3 has admitted that he raised grievances before the District Magistrate and other authorities regarding the arrest of Jokhu Singh etc. He also admits that he approached the District Judge and Sri Barai for release of Mr. Jokhu Singh on personal bond. This has also not been denied that on 18.11.1997 when the bail application of Jokhu Sigh was withdrawn by his lawyer large number of persons including the Police officials attacked Mr. Barai and assaulted him and put pressure for an order of unconditional release of Mr. Jokhu Singh.
22. In their show cause no doubt ail the contemners have condemned the incident of assault on Sri Barai, A.D.J. and the lawlessness created in the civil Court campus, Bhagalpur. They have desired that guilty persons responsible for such occurrence must be awarded stringent punishment so that such shameful incident may not be repeated again. Opposite party Nos. 4 to 26 except opposite party No. 12 have asserted that they were not involved in the incident and at the relevant time they were elsewhere on duty. In proof of such defence, they have attached their duty chart etc. Opposite party No. 2 in his supplementary show cause at Flag-'Y' claimed that he got a telephonic message at about 3 p.m. from the S.D.O., Sadar Bhagalpur, regarding some disturbance in the Civil Court. He went there with an Executive Magistrate, Sri Dinesh Prasad and learnt that some persons had misbehaved with 1st Additional Sessions Judge in his courtroom. He also stated about the visit of District Magistrate. He also says, that subsequently a team of doctors headed by Civil Surgeon had arrived to treat the A.D.J. He also could know that Sri D.N. Barai was assaulted by some police personnels. Thereafter, he remained present in the civil Court campus along with the Executive Magistrate and S.D.O. He expressed his inability to identify the police personnels. He took the plea that as the S.P., Bhagalpur was himself handling the situation, he had no occasion to apply his mind independently and take action on his own initiative.
23. In his show cause, Sri K.D. Choudhary (Opp. Party No 3) at Flag-'Z' mentioned about receiving anonymous call on telephone at 2.15 p.m. on 18.11.1997 regarding some disturbance in the civil Court campus. He rushed towards civil Court and on the way he learnt that some police personnel were involved in the incident. He sent information to the Superintendent of Police. It was claimed that he reached to Civil Court campus at 3.10 p.m. where he was pointed out by some lawyers that in the Court of A.D.J.-I disturbance had taken place. Sri Choudhary further claimed to have gone to the Chambers of Sri Barai and found him surrounded by some lawyers and his bodyguard at 3.17 p.m. He learnt from the Peshkar that some anti-social elements mixed with police personnel in planedress, had attacked Mr. Barai and had assaulted him as a result of which he was feeling pain in his chest. On his advise Mr. Choudhary went to call a doctor to provide immediate treatment. But when he brought Dr. Ramji Singh at about 4.00 p.m., the lawyers and other persons rushed towards him saying 'Maro' 'Maro'. According to him, Dr. Ramji Singh refused to go and then he sent him back in his jeep and remained there with armed forces in the civil Court campus. It was claimed by him to have learnt that the Superintendent of Police had also visited at 3.50 p.m. and his vehicle was stoned and then he went towards police line. He further learnt that after the Superintendent of Police left for the Police line, some police personnel again came in the civil Court campus and assaulted the lawyers. Opposite party No. 3 also claimed to have lodged an F.I.R. on 18.11.1997 at 4.30 p.m. with respect to that occurrence, which is Annexure-3/3 (Kotwali P.S. Case No. 676 of 1997). Sri Choudhary denied that he was involved in that incident. He says that he was not on duty in the civil Court campus at that time. It is interesting to note that in the aforesaid F.I.R. of Kotwali P.S. Case No 676 of 1997 Sri K.D. Choudhary has not even whispered a word about any assault made on Sri D.N. Barai, A.D.J. by the police personnel. Only reference about Sri Barai in that F.I.R. was that Sri Barai had a heart-attack. In the F.I.R. it was mentioned that some lawyers and others had fought amongst themselves. In our view, filing of such a concocted F.I.R. can only be said to cover up the incident and given a colour of quarrel between the lawyers and anti-social elements.
24. It paragraph No. 4 of his show cause, Mr. Choudhary has accepted that he being an office-bearer of the Police Men's Association at the district level had gone to the Chambers of Mr. Barai, 1st Additional District Judge, for release of Mr. Jokhu Singh on executing a personal bond. He further says when Mr. Barai did not agree, he approached the District Magistrate and on his advice he again met the District Judge and Sri Barai and renewed his demand for release of Mr. Jokhu Singh. In my view, such act on the part of Mr. Choudhary was highly unjust and uncalled for, as it amounts to interference with administration of justice, particularly at a time when bail application was pending for hearing before Mr. Barai.
25. In his show cause Opposite party No. 1 (Superintendent of Police) stated to have received telephonic message from the C.J.M. at 3.30 p.m. on 18.11.1997 and he stated that after having a talk with Zonal I.G. and D.M., he rushed to the Civil Court and soon after, the D.M. also came there. His car was allowed to go ahead. It is further mentioned that the City Dy. S.P. (Opp. Party No. 2) and S.D.O., Sadar, who were already there, rushed near the D.M. and said something upon which his car zoomed in full speed and went away. The Dy. Section P. and S.D.O. informed him that the lawyers were aggrieved at the treatment meted out to the learned A.D.J., Sri Barai and the situation was tense. He says that Dy. S.P. was manhandled, S.D.O.'s body-guard was beaten up. The S.P. has also narrated as to how he contacted the superior officers. As per the direction of the Zonal I.G., he went to the Police Line, but no officer was found there. On return he saw Sri R. Pandey, Opp party No. 10, Sri Krishna Ram, Opp. party No. 9 and Daroga Singh, Opp.-Party No. 5 and others standing near the southern gate of Court campus. The S.P. also went to the police club at 6.30 p.m., followed by Zonal I.G. and addressed police officers there, who had assembled at the Club. The S.P. asked Sri K.D. Choudhary (Opp. party No. 3) why he had left the Police Station unguarded, on which he replied that Sri D.N. Barai, A.D.J. had committed an illegal act, while remanding Sri Jokhu Singh to judicial custody and removing his stars. The S.P. claimed to have sent joint report with the D.M. That joint report has not been filed by the S.P. But surprisingly enough, this confidential report has been annexed with the show cause of Opp. party No. 13 at Flag-A6. How he got a copy of this confidential report, is itself a mystery and reflects the type of administration prevailing in the district. This joint report of D.M. and S.P. also appears to have been prepared to cover up the incident. The matter relating to custody of Jokhan Singh was highlighted by the S.P., but unfortunately there was no mention about the incident of assault on Sri D.N. Barai by the police personnel. That report is also incorrect as it was mentioned in the same that no information anticipating such occurrence was given to the District administration and the senior police officers. Because at least the show cause of Opp. party No. 1 and Opp. party No. 3 clearly indicate that on 17.11.1997 itself the Zonal I.G. and the D.M. had received information about the arrest of Jokhu Singh and resentment amongst the police personnel. In fact, Opp. party No. 3 in his show cause has mentioned that the made a grievance before the D.M. regarding arrest of Jokhu Singh and the District Magistrate asked him to meet the District Judge with whom he had some talk with respect to the said order passed by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge. If that be true, the action of D.M. would certainly amount to an interference in administration of justice warranting a contempt proceeding against his as well. Thus, it is manifest that the Zonal I.G., D.M. & S.P. had information on 17.11.1997 about the resentment of Police personnel of course, on highly unjustifiable ground. The inaction of such authority to control the situation as they had enough time, indicates lack of foresight and control over the Police officers and the Civil Court was left completely ignored and uncared.
26. But we have already indicated that Superintendent of Police (Opp. Party No. 1) fairly disclosed in his statement before us and in his show cause, the names of different opp. parties who as per his information and inquiry had taken active part in assault and manhandling of the A.D.J., Civil Court staff and lawyers. We must therefore, record our appreciation to his bold and fair stand.
27. Mr. Ranjeet Pandey (Opp. party 12) though in his show cause (Flag'O') had admitted to have gone to the courtroom and chambers of Sri Barai, but has denied that he took any part to humiliate or assault Mr Barai. According to him, since the Court premises was just adjacent to the Police line, therefore, he went there and tried to save the incident and protect the learned Judge and the lawyers. In his statement, which was recorded by us, similar facts were stated. In his last show cause (Flag-'A5') also he has reiterated his earlier stand. In both the show causes this opposite party has accepted that in the attack on Mr. Barai, the Police personnel were involved, but he was not able to recollect names of such persons, who had taken active part.
28. So far as the question of identification of Police Personnel, who were involved in the incident of attack and shouting slogans and breaking the door of the chambers of the ADJ and in manhandling and assaulting him is concerned, Sri D.N. Barai in his affidavit at flag 'A2l' has named and identified four persons, namely, Sri K.D. Choudhary (Opp. Party No. 3), Shashilata Singh (Opp. party No. 4), Sri Ranjit Pandey (Opp. Party No. 12) and Sri K.N. Singh (Opp. party No. 11). In his affidavit Sri Ram Autar Das, the Bench Clerk of Sri Barai at Flag-'A22' claimed to have, identified Sri K.D. Choudhary (Opp. party No. 3), Shashilata Singh (Opp. Party No. 4), Sri Ranjit Pandey (Opp. party No. 12), Sri P.K. Singh 9Opp. party No. 6) and Sri K.N. Singh (Opp. party No. 11) amongst the police officers who had manhandled the A.D.J. and Sri Bishundeo Sharma, orderly peon of A.D.J. named Sri, K.D. Choudhary (Opp. party No. 3), Shashi Lata Singh (Opp. party No. 4) and Ranjit Pandey (Opp. party No. 12) amongst the persons, who had entered the Chambers of the A.D.J. Sri M.P. Singh, President of Bar Association, Bhagalpur in his affidavit at Flag-'A15' named 15 police officers, including four such officers against whom show cause notices were not issued. But Sri Sigh mentioned that he learnt the names of these officers from others. Therefore, in absence of any other corroboration, the names mentioned by Sri M.P. Singh may be treated to be based on hearsay. Sri Jogendra Kumar Roy, Secretary, Advocates Association in his affidavit at Flag-'A16' clearly stated that he was not an eye witness of the firs part of the occurrence and that he saw the second part of the occurrence regarding assault on lawyers and damage of Advocate Association's property in which he identified Shashilata Singh (Opp. party No. 4), Sri K.D. Choudhary (Opp. party No. 3) and Sri P.K. Singh (Opp. party No. 6) Sri Nabhay Choudhary, Advocate in his affidavit at Flag A17' simply narrated about the incident. He has also annexed the affidavits of four advocates as enclosure to his affidavit.
29. Sri Amar Nath Mukherji, Advocate in his affidavit named Shashi Lata Singh, who had chased the lawyers. Sri Satya Narayan Pandey, Advocate, is the most competent witness on the point as he was also one of the persons, who saved Sri D.N. Barai A.D.J. in his affidavit he stated that here was a lady S.I. (Opp. party No. 4), Sri Ranjit Pandey (Opp. party No. 12). Officer-in-charge of Kotwali P.S. (Opp. party No. 3) and one S.I. Sharma (Opp. party No. 18) who was in violent mood. Sri Pandey admitted that Opp. party No. 12 Ranjit Pandey was his relation and that Sri Ranjit Pandey in fact, asked the Police' Officers to hear him, But Sri S.N. Pandey himself posed a question as to why Ranjit Pandey was there. In another affidavit Sri Ratan Kumar Mishra 'Pankaj' claimed to have identified nine police personnel, including Shahsilata Singh (Opp. party No. 4), Sri K.D. Choudhary (Opp. party No. 3), Ram Suresh Singh 'Nirala' (Opp party No. 13), Sri R.R. Dayal (Bhagat)(Opp. party No. 7) and Krishna Ram (Opp. party No. 9), besides four other persons against whom show cause notices were not issued. Mrs. Sadhana Jha, Advocate, in her affidavit claimed to have identified Shashilata Singh (Opp. party No. 4) and P.K. Singh (Opp. party No. 6), Sri Vinayanand Mishra, Advocate in his affidavit at Flag-'A19' named Sri K.D. Choudhary (Opp. party No. 3), Officer-incharge, Kajraili (P.K. Singh) (Opp. party No. 6), Shashilata Singh (Opp. party No. 4) and K.N. Singh (Opp. party No. 11) amongst the police personnel, leading the group of police personnel, who were assaulting Sri. D.N. Barai. In his affidavit Sri Jai Karan, Secretary, Bar Association, named 15 police personnel, but he stated to have learnt the names from others but in absence of any corroboration that can be treated as hearsay.
30. Opposite party No. 1, the then Superintendent of Police, Sri A. Natrajan, as noticed above, in his show cause had named Opp. party Nos. 3 to 12 and also named Opp. party Nos. 13 to 26 on the basis of his enquiry as the persons involved in the incident. Opp party No. 1 while returning from police line had personally identified Opp. party Nos. 3, 5, 9, 10 and 12 standing near the gate of the civil Court. On behalf of other contemners it was urged since Sri Natrajan, the Superintendent of Police is himself facing this contempt, no reliance should be placed on his statement or show cause unless he is allowed to be cross-examined by the lawyers. In our view, as held by the Apex Court in the case of 'Delhi Judicial Service Association' (supra), the contempt proceeding has a peculiar feature, therefore, merely by issuance of notice of contempt, Opp. party No. 1 does not stand in the category of an accused of an offence and as such, his statement naming those, who are involved in this occurrence cannot be treated as statement of a co-accused.
31. That apart, as noticed from the affidavit and supplementary affidavit of the Chief Secretary and report of D.G.P. dated 21.11.97 it appears that on the direction of the State Government, Director General of Police, Bihar had held spot inquiry and recorded statements of Jokhu Singh, the Superintendent of Police (Opp. party No. 1), K.D. Choudhary, Officer-incharge, Kotwali Police Station (Opp. party No. 3), Shiv Narayan Jha, Additional Public Prosecutor, Bhagalpur Civil Court, Sri Md. Wasil Khan the Public Prosecutor, Bhagalpur Civil Court, P.K. Singh, Officer-in-charge (Opp. party No. 6), Ram Lakhan Ravidas, S.D.O., Sadar Bhagalpur, S.P. Choudhary, Dy. S.P. (Opp. party No. 2) and also contacted the District Judge and other officials and ultimately arrived at a conclusion that K.D. Choudhary (Opp. party No. 3), Ranjit Pandey (Opp. party No. 12), Shshilata Singh (Opp. party No. 4), K.N. Singh (Opposite party No. 11), Gurubachan Singh (Opp. party No. 8), Daroga Singh (Opp. party No. 5), P.K. Singh (Opp. party No. 6) Rajiv Ranjan Singh (Opp. party No. 7) and C.D. Jha (Opp. party No. 10) were mainly guilty for the alleged incident. Therefore, it can not be said that names of opposite parties have been named by the Superintendent of Police alone.
32. Learned Counsel appearing for Opp. party No. 3, however, at the end of the proceeding contended that he reference in this case by the Sub-ordinate Court to initiate the criminal contempt was made without holding any preliminary inquiry by the Court concerned. Because as per Rules of the Patna High Court, the Sub-ordinate Court was required to old a preliminary inquiry before making reference under Section 15(2) of the Act. In our view, there is no substance in such submission. Because a bare reference to the reports of the Additional District Judge, as well as the District Judge, would indicate that such reports were definitely sent to the High Court after having received all necessary informations and preliminary enquiry. That apart, it would appear from the report of the Additional Judge that at that stage, Sri Barai was not in a position to send report. It has to be noticed that Section 15 of the Act prescribes modes for taking cognizance of criminal contempt by the High Court. The whole object of prescribing procedural modes of taking cognizance in this Section 15 is to safeguard the valuable time of the High Court, being wasted by frivolous complaints. Section 15(2) does not restrict the power of the High Court to take cognizance of the contempt of itself or of a subordinate Court on its own motion. In the case of Board's Revenue, U.P. v. Vinay Chandra : 1981CriLJ283 , the Apex Court held that Section 15 prescribes procedure for taking cognizance. It does not affect the High Courts suo motu power to take cognizance and punish for contempt of subordinate Courts. Therefore, having received the reports of the Additional Judge, the District Judge and other information, if this Court being satisfied, had taken cognizance against the contemners it will not be open to question its inherent jurisdiction. Reference in this regard can also be made to the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association (supra).
33. It was next contended that in absence of an opportunity to the contemners to cross-examine Judges, Superintendent of Police and other different persons who either in their reports or affidavits and show cause had made allegations against the contemners, there can not be any justification to hold them guilty merely on the basis of the statements, which have been made on affidavits. Reliance was made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sukhdeo Singh v. Teja Singh, C.J. and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 186 and the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association (supra) to draw our attention to the well known maxim, that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done by all concerned to establish confidence, that contemners will receive a fair, just and impartial trial. In our view, having regard to the stand taken by the learned Advocates, appearing for the parties that all possible fair and proper opportunities were extended to them, it will not be open at this stage to take such stand that in absence of cross-examination of the concerned persons reliance can not be made on the statements, which were made on oath. That apart, even from a bare reference to the judgments, which have been relied upon by the learned Counsel, it would appear that procedures prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Evidence Act are not applicable in the matters of contempt triable by the High Court. The High Court can deal with such matters, summarily and adopt its own procedure. All that is necessary is that the procedure must be fair and that the contemners be made aware of the charges against them and be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend.
34. In support of such view, reliance can usefully be made to some of the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court like the case of N. Bakshi v. O.K. Ghosh : AIR1957Pat528 . B.C. Ghosh and Ors. : AIR1960Pat430 , Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529, Vinay Chandra Mishra : 1995CriLJ3994 (supra) and Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of Judicature of Punjab and Haryana : 1995CriLJ3627 . In all such cases, it was repeatedly held that procedure prescribed either under the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Evidence Act are not attracted to the proceedings initiated under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The only caution that has to be observed in exercising this inherent power of summary procedure is that the procedure followed must be fair and the contemner should be made aware of the charges with a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, having regard that contempt proceedings are to be decided expeditiously in a summary manner, almost all the cases referred to above were decided without extending any opportunity to the contemners to cross examine those, who had made allegations and filed affidavits.
35. Moreover, in the instant case admittedly the contemners were issued notices intimating them the specific allegations. They were also given opportunity to counter the allegations by filing show cause as well as additional supplementary affidavits, Most of the contemners have taken plea that at the relevant time they were on duties at the respective Police stations though in the same town. They have also attached copies of station diaries and duty chart etc. in support of their alibi. All such papers have been prepared by themselves. No affidavit or any certificate of the higher authorities were produced in support of their alibi. Therefore, having regard to the reports of the Additional District Judge, District Judge and Director General of Police, coupled with affidavits of Mr. Barai, the Additional District Judge, and affidavits of other persons, who had witnessed the occurrence, it would be unsafe to accept the plea of contemners that at the relevant time they had not gone to the civil Court.
36. Thus from the analysis of the facts noticed above, there appears no doubt that K.D. Choudhary (Opp. party No. 3) feeling aggrieved by the arrest of Mr. Jokhu Singh, in capacity of representative of the Police Men's Association along with other contemners attacked and assaulted the Additional District Judge and others in a pre-planned manner. From the show cause of Mr. Choudhary it has also been established that after the arrest of Jokhu Singh on 17.11.1997, he met the A.D.J. (Mr. Barai) and tried to pressurise and influence him for unconditional release of Jokhu Singh. Undisputedly, such an attempt by Mr. Choudhary amounts to interference in administration of justice, particularly at a time when bail application was pending for hearing.
37. Though on the basis of the reports of Sub-Ordinate Courts, and the affidavits of S.P. (opp. party No. 1), we had issued notices to 26 persons, but having examined the relevant materials brought on record, we feel inclined to hold guilty only those contemners against whom sufficient and direct evidence are available. We do not propose to rely upon such affidavits which are based on hearsay facts. Because in a summary proceeding of contempt to hold some body guilty, it will not be proper until and unless sufficient evidence and corroborative materials are available.
38. Therefore, excluding the affidavits which are based on hearsay as also excluding the cases of such contemners against whom there is single identifications, the number of identifications against other contemners is as follows: (a) K.D. Choudhary (Opp. party No. 3)-10, (b) Ms. Shashilata Singh (Opp. party No. 4)-11, (c) Daroga Singh (Opp party No. 5)-2, (d) P.K. Singh (Opp. party No. 6)-6, (e) R.R. Bhagat alias R.R. Dayal (Opp. party No. 7)-3, (f) Guru Bachan Singh (Opp. party No. 8)-2, (g) C.D. Jha (Opp. party No. 10)-2, (h) K.N. Singh (Opp. party No. 11)-3 and (i) R. Pandey (Opp. party No. 12)-6. Accordingly, they are held guilty for criminal contempt and their show causes are thus rejected.
39. Besides the Superintendent of Police, only Ratan Kumar Mishra, 'Pankaj' had named Krishna Ram (Opp. party No. 9) but we do not find his name in the report of the Director General of Police, therefore, until and unless other materials are available it may not be proper to hold him guilty for contempt.
40. Thoughcontempt proceeding was also initiated against the Superintendent of Police (Opp. party No. 1) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Opp. party No. 2), but having considered the materials brought on record including their show cause, there appears no allegation that they had also participated along with other contemners in the incident. Therefore, we drop the contempt proceeding against Superintendent of Police (Opp. party No. 1) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (opposite party No. 2) and rule is discharged. But we must record that due to lack of their foresight and prompt efforts, the civil Court was left completely ignored and uncared on 18.11.1997.
41. Similarly, the contempt proceeding is also dropped against Ram Suresh Singh Nirala (Opp. party No. 13), Sriram Sigh (Opp. party No. 14), Ram Rekha Pandey (Opp. party No. 15), Shivji Singh (Opp. party No. 16), B.N. Singh (Opp. party No. 17), Sukh Narain Sharma (Opp. party No. 18), D.D. Singh (Opp. party No. 19), Gopalji Prasad (Opp. party No. 20), Madhusudhan Sharma (Opp. party No. 21), Awadhesh Singh (Opp. party No. 22), Subodh Kumar Yadav (Opp. party No. 23), Ram Prakash Paswan (Opp. party No. 24), Dilip Ojha (Opp. party No. 25) and Anil Kumar Soren, (opp party No. 26) and rule is discharged. Because though names of the abovementioned opposite parties had figured in the show cause of the superintendent of Police and affidavits of certain Advocates, but for want of direct evidence and corroborative materials it will not be proper to hold them guilty for contempt.
42. We have also noticed that Zonal Inspector General of Police and District Magistrate had full knowledge on 17.11.1979 itself about the resentment of the Police personnel. But they also failed to take prompt action to safeguard the situation. But we are conscious that such authorities were not noticed in this proceeding. Therefore, it would not be proper for us to record any finding against them save and except to express the Court's displeasure. It has also been noticed that in paragraph 4 (vii to x) of the show cause the opposite party No. 3 (flag 'Z'), has stated that he met for the second time with the ADJ 1st after getting permission of the District Judge to request him to release Jokhu Singh. If his statement is correct, the action of the District Judge also amounts to interference with administration of justice at a time when bail matter was pending. The High Court should examine this aspect on administrative side.
43. It would be appropriate to mention that learned Advocates appearing for the Additional District Judge and Bihar State Bar Council wanted to file more affidavits of other learned Advocates or staff of the civil Court who were present at the time of incident. But having regard to the summary nature of the proceeding and also with a view to dispose of the same expeditiously, we accepted only such affidavits which were relevant to prove the incident which had taken place in the courtroom. Because undisputedly other proceedings, including enquiry commission or criminal cases, are already pending at Bhagalpur.
44. Before recording punishments and concluding the proceeding, we would like to indicate that foundation of a civilised country depends upon trust and confidence of the Police. So is the case of judiciary. Because most of the judgments and orders of Court are to be executed by the Police. The day a citizen of any civilised country loses faith on Police, it will be disastrous for the country and the established system resulting in Jungle Raj. The Courts are trusted with duties to deliver judgments and orders in accordance with law. At the same time, law commands the Police to execute such judgments and orders. Therefore, both the wings of democracy are dependent upon each other.
45. We may notice once again, the views expressed by us earlier that even hardcore terrorists and criminals are not expected to behave in such a manner when extreme penalties like death, are pronounced by Courts. Why so, because they have faith in the system and on judicial verdicts. It is known to all that law has provided full protection and remedy to those against whom such verdicts are given by Courts.
46. Now the question arises what punishment should be awarded to the contemners who have been found guilty of contempt. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Judicial Service Association (supra), for determining the punishment, the degree and the extent of part played by each of the contemners has to be kept in mind. In view of seriousness of allegations, we are not inclined to accept the apology tendered by the opposite parties, (excepting opposite party No. 3 who had not tendered any apology).
Since Shri K.D. Choudhary (opposite party No. 3) has acted as 'ring leader' of the contemners in the entire incident and planned the episode with a view to humiliate and assault the A.D.J. 1st (Mr D.N. Barai), he deserves a severe punishment. Accordingly he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Opposite party No. 4 Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, opposite party No. 5 Daroga Singh, opposite party No. 6 P.K. Singh opposite party No 7 Rajib Ranjan Bhagat (Dayal) opposite party No. 8 Gurubachan Singh, opposite party No. 10 C.D. Jha, opposite party No. 11 K.N. Singh and opposite party No. 12 Ranjit Pandey shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
47. We, however, make it clear that discharge of rule of contempt notices of this proceeding will not absolve such opposite parties for their misconduct and guilt for respective offfences, if any. In other words, departmental proceedings initiated by the State Government, the proceedings of inquiry commission and criminal cases will not be affected by disposal of this contempt proceeding.
48. Before parting with this order, we are, however, constrained to observe that the State Government has not yet taken effective steps to make arrangements for the safety of the civil Courts and the judicial officers. Therefore, in our view, a time has come that State Government should take immediate steps to provide proper safety to the Civil Court and Judicial Officials without any further delay.
49. Though writ application bearing CWJC No. 10625 of 1997 filed on behalf of Bihar Young Lawyers' Association was listed for hearing with this case, but having regard to the same and similar nature of prayer, as in the contempt proceeding, it is not necessary for us to record a separate finding.
50. But before concluding this order, we must record our appreciation to the able assistance rendered to us by all the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and the learned Additional Advocate General. We would also like to record appreciation to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police for their prompt and fair steps taken in this matter.
51.The contempt petition and the writ petition are disposed of accordingly.