K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
1. (Giving the first judgment at the invitation of Jagannadha Rao, CJ):- Indeed Contempt of Court has been described as 'the proteus of the legal world, assuming an almost infinite variety of forms'. The history of this case exemplifies the above statement. A peon of this Court was entrusted with the task of serving notice in a habeas corpus petition. The first respondent herein was one of the respondents on whom the notice was to be served. The peon went to the house of the first respondent in the company of another person who offered to identify the person. The first respondent is a tea-shop owner. As he was away in the teashop he was sent for. Second respondent, who is also one of the contemnors, was present in the house of the first respondent. The habeas corpus petition was filed in respect of one Beena, who was the wife's sister of the 2nd respondent. Beena was also present in the house of the first respondent. First respondent immediately came to his house and enquired what the matter was. The peon, who was anxious to serve summons on the first respondent, explained that he had been deputed by the High Court to serve an order. The latter demanded him to read and explain the order. The peon is alleged to have read over the contents of the order. It is further alleged that the first respondent suddenly got enraged and snatched away the papers from the peon and uttered that they did not contain the seal of the Court. The peon tried to explain that it contained an embossing seal and requested that the papers shall not be torn and damaged. The first respondent then exhorted the 2nd respondent not to leave the peon. Second respondent suddenly attacked the peon by punching him on the stomach. The respondents together dragged the peon/6 a nearby room and locked him there. The peon made a hue and cry and hearing his outcry the neighbours collected and at their instance the peon was released from the room. He later gave a statement before the police and on the same day he was admitted in a hospital. On the fifth day he gave a statement before the Registrar of this Court. The matter was ordered to be placed on the judicial side and the Division Bench of this Court decided to take suo motu action in the matter under Rule 7 of the Contempt of Courts Rules.
2. Notices were issued to the respondents. Respondents filed two counter-affidavits each. In the first counter-affidavit dated 8-4-92, the first respondent has not specifically denied the allegations made by the peon in the statement and the details mentioned in it. There is only a general denial of the incident. His case is that a person came to his house accompanied by a friend of the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition. The person took out a sheet of paper from his plastic packet and handed over to him. As the first respondent was illiterate he handed over the same to Beena. She said that it was not summons and it was a fraud played on them. On seeing fhe person who accompanied the peon she cried aloud stating that it was in his house she was formerly wrongfully confined by the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition and it was he who had requested for her gold ornaments. This respondent further alleges that Beena is closely related to his wife and from 13-2-92 onwards several strangers had come to his house pretending as sales agents, agricultural demonstrators etc. in order to contact the girl Beena. The further case of the first respondent is that the 2nd respondent then caught hold of the person who accompanied the peon thinking that he was an agent of the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition. Then the peon all of a sudden tried to run away and in this attempt he fell on the ground near the door steps. The matter was informed to the police and the police informed this respondent that the peon was deputed from the High Court. It is alleged that then only the first respondent realised that he was a peon of the High Court.
3. In another affidavit filed on 9-4-92, he had reiterated what he had stated in the earlier affidavit and offered unconditional apology and requested for pardon. It is stated in the second affidavit that he had already suffered a lot due to the mental agony caused by this case and the connected criminal case.
4. The 2nd respondent has also filed two affidavits. He had denied the allegations made against him. There is only a general denial by the 2nd respondent. He has offered unconditional apology and requests for pardon.
5. We notice that there was a criminal case against these two accused and by the order in Crl. R. P. No. 479 of 1993 of this Court it was found, on the basis of the evidence adduced, that no case was made out under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. However, these respondents were found guilty under Sections 342 and 323 of the Penal Code. Counsel for the respondents strongly placed reliance on the finding of the criminal court. The decision of the criminal court was arrival at on the basis of the evidence adduced before the criminal court.
6. The allegation against the contemners is that they committed criminal contempt and such proceedings are in the nature of criminal proceedings. However, the alleged contemnor is not treated as accused in a criminal case. He can file affidavits and the court can act upon such affidavits. Rule 16(ii) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court.of Kerala) Rules says that evidence be produced in the form of affidavits. The statement given by the peon and the memo of charge furnished to the respondents give precise terms in detail the words and deeds which are said to constitute the contempt. The attempt of the respondents that they were not aware of the identity of the peon and they took him to be an agent of the person who filed the Habeas Corpus petition. Even if it is assumed that they had an initial doubt regarding the identity, the way in which they behaved is highly objectionable. They could have ascertained the identity of the person and find out the truth in so many ways as reasonable prudent men. Without doing so they mounted an immediate attack on the person and without least hesitation wrongfully confined him is a room. The peon had no previous acquaintance with the respondents. He gave the statement with all details. Respondents have no case that his statement before the Registrar is in any way conflict with his previous first information statement before the police. From the statement of the peon, the affidavits of the respondents and other attendant circumstances, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the charges framed against the respondents are proved.
7. The acts committed by the respondents will squarely come within the definition of criminal contempt defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is clear that respondents tried to interfere with the administration of justice and wanted to lower the authority of this Court. This is a case where there is proof of due interference with the administration of justice. Lord Reid in the famous Thalidomide case (Attorney General v. Time News Papers, 1974 AC 273) at page 294, while speaking on Contempt observed :
The law on the subject is and must be founded entirely on public policy. It is not there to protect the private rights of parties to a litigation or prosecution. It is there to prevent interference with the administration of justice and it should in my judgment be limited to what is reasonably necessary for that purpose'.
8. Counsel for the respondents argued that the respondents are illiterate and they had to suffer the ordeal of the criminal trial and they be exonerated. We are not persuaded to dress up the whole affair as though it was an accident. We cannot see these matters as too transient or trifling. If these sort of acts go unpunished, it may have negative social impact and would lead inexorably to lessen the public confidence in judicial system. It is proved that the respondents have committed criminal contempt of courts and their vascillating attitude and apology are not sufficient to purge the contempt.
9. We are satisfied that the acts of contempt committed by the respondents substantially interfere with the course of justice. However, we take a lenient view, having regard to the illiteracy of the contemnors and their conviction and sentence in the connected criminal case, we sentence each of the respondents to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week.
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.
10. I agree with the reasoning and conclusions of my learned brother, Balakrishnan, J., but, having regard to the importance of the matter for the judicial administration of the High Court, I wish to add a few words.
11. The procedure in this Court of having notices, in Writ Petitions or Habeas Corpus Petitions or other matters, served through a 'Special Messenger', who is a peon of the High Court, is intended to see that, in very urgent matters, notices are served expeditiously. Indeed, if such a procedure is not resorted to, there is, in several cases, the likelihood of the matters becoming infructuous or irremedial damage resulting to the affected parties. If it is found that such peons are manhandled or beaten up, it is the primary concern of this Court to protect the peons. Or else, these peons may not be willing to go on such errands or they may fail in the perfomance of their duties. It is also likely that more people may be emboldened to manhandle or resort to violence or wilful obstruction of these peons.
12. Oswald's Law of Contempt of Court (3rd Edn., p. 85) states that it is contempt 'a to assault, illtreat, or threaten a process server engaged in his duty' (Rove v. West (1558) Cary 38; etc., Price v. Hutchinson, (1870) LR 9 Eq. 534). Where a defendant, on being served with a sub peona, compelled the person serving it to eat the parchment and the wax of the process, and also beat and kicked him, he was committed to the Fleet for his contempt (Williams v. Johns, (1773) 2 Dick 477). A husband, who took by the throat and with foul epithets pushed out of the door and down the steps, a person who came to serve his wife with a charging order in respect of certain securities was ordered by the Divisional Court to be committed (Whitworth v. Duncan, (1893) Times, Jan. 14).
13. In the Law of Contempt by Anthony Arlidge & David Eady. (1982) (para 4-120), it is stated that it is contempt to interfere with an officer of the Court in the execution of his duty. This is a protection which extends beyond that which protects all those having business at Court or on their way thereto, whilst there and on their return therefrom. Whist all officers of the Court are protected, most of the decisions relate to process-servers. Lewis v. Owen, (1894) (1) QB 102, is the case of a Bailiff. To assult a person serving process of the Court or to prevent service of process of the Court upon someone is contempt (Wylam v. Wylam and Roller, (1893) 69 IT 500).
14. Indian High Courts have also held so. In Prasanna Narayan v. K.L.L.M. Bank, (1944) 48 Cal WN 825, Gentle, J. (as he then was) held, in connection with the threat and assault to a Sheriff's Officer, that:
Unless officers, carrying out their duties in the administration of justice, are properly protected, there will be an end to the due course of justice.
In First National Bank v. Kalicharan, Tekchand, J. held, in regard to a case of obstruction and assault, or a process server, that Court officials discharging their official duties are to be protected. The apology offered while denying the act of contempt alleged, was not accepted and a sentence of one month of simple imprisonment imposed.
15. In a similar case, in regard to obstruction to a Naib Nazir, who was to deliver property under an order of Court, the Patna High Court, in Jnanendra Prasad Bose v. Gopal Prasad Sen, AIR 1933 Pat 204, awarded a punishment of six months simple imprisonment under the Contempt of Courts 1926
16. Under Section 22 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it is stated that the provision thereof:
shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law relating to contempt of Courts.
This saves the inherent powers of the Courts of Record and implies that Section 228 of the I.P.C. is not contradictory nor is superseded.
17. In my view, the order passed by the Criminal Courts culminating in the orders in Criminal Revision, imposing a fine and setting aside the conviction under Section 332 I.P.C., and holding that the contemnors were not aware that the notices were notices issued by the High Court, are not binding on this Court exercising Contempt jurisdiction. The statement issued by the Peon to the Registrar of this Court that he informed the contmeners who he was, and also that the notices were issued by the High Court and that he read out the contents, cannot be ignored by us in this C.C.C., whatever be the finding as to 'awareness' given in the criminal proceedings. I am in entire agreement with the reasoning and order of punishment proposed by my learned Brother, Balakrishnan, J.
18. The contemners were present. The judgment was delivered. Each of the respondents is found guilty and sentenced to undergo one week's simple imprisonment. The contemners expressed that they would like to file appeal. In the circumstances, we suspend the sentence for a period of one month from today upon each of the contemners executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 - before the Registrar of this Court.