Principal Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Belgaum Vs. Manjula Kudalagi - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- negotiable instruments act, 1881[c.a. no. 26/1881]section 138; [v.jagannathan, j] whether the power of attorney holder is competent to file the complaint and give the evidence in a proceedings under section 138 of the act? held, there is no bar for the power of attorney holder to initiate proceedings under section 138 of the act . the power of attorney holder is also competent to give evidence on behalf of the complainant. section 138; complaint under whether the cheques issued being transferred to another branch of the same bank, attract the offence under section 138 of the n.i. act ? held, whether the cheque was returned for the reasons of the account being closed or the account being transferred to some other branch, is not the criteria, but the fact is that there was no fund available in that particular account of the respondent to honour the cheques thereon in favour of the complainants. on facts, held, even the reasons given by the bank accounts closed and transferred to shanthinagar branch also can be brought within the expression insufficient funds .hence, the offence under section 138 of the act is attracted. section 139; [v. jagannathan, j] presumption under requirement as to complainant proving the existence of legally recoverable debt respondent admitting his liability towards complainant letter of acknowledgment of debt cheque in question were issued by the respondent to clear the existing debt held, the very fact that the respondent has admitted his liability towards complainants by having committed himself to pay the amounts mentioned in the letter of acknowledgement, it is not open to the respondent to take the plea that he is not liable to pay any amount to the complainants. further, in the case on hand, cheque being issued and the same being presented and it being dishonoured and following that the notice being issued by each one of the complainants to the respondent and finally despite service of notice, the respondent having not made any payment within 15 days from the date of service of notice are satisfied, and nothing remains for the complainant to prove further his case. in fact, in response to the legal notice issued to the respondent, in the reply, the respondent does not deny the cheques being issued by him and does not take up the plea that the liability is subject to fulfillment of any of the conditions contained in the memorandum of agreement and the respondent himself strengthened the case of the complainants by acknowledging his debt by issuing a letter. the order of acquittal is not justified. - those reasons still hold good and hence the present application stands rejected. it is well settled law that if any litigant is aggrieved by a judicial order, that the party concerned is always free to challenge that order or get it rectified by a superior forum of competent jurisdiction.m.f. saldanha, j.1. the respondent is present in person. she has in the course of the earlier proceedings in this court been behaving in an extremely indecorous fashion, walking into the court room when she pleases and misbehaving in the open court. in our order dt. 13-11-96 she was administered a final warning. despite this, she is persistent in her misbehaviour in the course of the hearing even today. 2. the respondent has once again presented a written application in which she has demanded that 14 judges and one advocate should be summoned as witnesses. we have already dealt with an identical application and passed speaking order on 13-11-96 at which time we have given reasons indicating why such an application cannot be granted. those reasons still hold good and hence the present application stands rejected. 3. the then prl. district & sessions judge, belgaum by his reference dated 6-11-95 had pointed out to the high court that the respondent to this proceeding had instituted about one dozen criminal cases against the judicial officers in that district. the then prl. civil judge & chief judicial magistrate, belgaum forwarded the copies of the complaints and the orders passed thereon to the dist. judge. a perusal of those complaints indicates that the respondent has been relentlessly instituting criminal proceedings against the different judges, the sum and substance of each of those proceedings being that the concerned judge is alleged to have acted maliciously against her by having either rejected of dismissed the proceedings against her. it is well settled law that if any litigant is aggrieved by a judicial order, that the party concerned is always free to challenge that order or get it rectified by a superior forum of competent jurisdiction. even if the order is downright wrong or perverse, it is within the scope of the law for the aggrieved party to bring these facts to the notice of the appellate authority and to pray for appropriate corrective action and there are instances when the superior courts have upheld such pleas and have also come down heavily on the subordinate forums if the grounds so justified. there is no warrant under the legal system of this country to institute criminal proceedings against a judicial officer or a judge on the ground that the order passed by him or the decision rendered in a case is incorrect, wrong or malicious. the respondent in this instance not only instituted one such proceedings but she followed them up and went to the extent of instituting as many as 12 such criminal cases against various officers including the district judge. it is in these circumstances that the district judge, belgaum made a reference to this court for action under s. 15 of the contempt of courts act. 4. the high court registered the contempt proceedings and after notice to the respondent she was asked to remain present before the court. the record of this case indicates that after hearing her the then division bench came to the conclusion that this was a proceeding in which action under the contempt of courts act was warranted and therefore, a formal charge was framed. the respt. pleaded not guilty and the proceeding therefore went on. it is of considerable relevance for us to record that at no stage in this proceeding has the respt. tendered an apology or expressed any regret whatsoever for the acts that are alleged against her. on the contrary, she has acted unduly defiant and has misbehaved in the court on every date of hearing including the present one. the orders passed by the court from time to time are indicative of her conduct and it was in these circumstances that the state was directed to keep the women constables present in court as the dignity and decorum of the high court requires that no misbehaviour of this type can be permitted during judicial proceeding. 5. as far as the evidence is concerned, the record of the complaints in question has not been disputed. the copies have been produced and the respt. does not deny having instituted everyone of these proceedings. she was given an opportunity to defend herself and the respt. has given evidence in which she has maintained that according to her the orders passed initially in her appeal when it was rejected were unjustified and according to her, therefore, she had every right in law to prosecute the judge concerned. that was the starting point of the proceedings and every time the complaint filed by the respt. came to be rejected, she reinstituted further criminal proceedings against that particular judicial officer. this is how as many as 12 criminal cases against judges were instituted by the respt. and through her evidence and in her statements made before us she has maintained that she has acted correctly and within the framework of law. 6. section 2 of the contempt of courts act makes an act of criminal contempt punishable if such an act tends to interfere with or prejudices the course of judicial proceedings. the essence of the law of contempt is that all persons at all times observe and display complete respect for the justice dispensation machinery which specifically includes the judges who are invested with the duty of carrying out that task, and who shall be treated with the dignity and the respect which they are entitled to. it is also a requirement of law that the judicial officers concerned must be within their right to carry on their duties without being exposed to any frivolous attacks particularly from any litigant. it is inevitable, when a case is decided, that the party which loses is bound to be unhappy with that decision but that can never justify the party concerned making personal, malicious allegations against the judicial officer. if such a course of action were ever to be sanctioned or permitted, it would become impossible for the court to function. it is in this background that the law requires that persons who indulge in any such attacks which would seriously prejudice or interfere with the course of administration of justice and the course of judicial proceedings are required to be firmly punished. such acts under s. 2 of the contempt of courts act constitutes criminal contempt. 7. we have carefully perused the record of this case. the respt. does not deny the filing of the 12 cases in question against judicial officers. the law does not permit the filing of cases of this type. the respt. has persisted in carrying out the act of filing cases against judicial officers even after the charge was framed. the respt. has not acknowledged that she was wrong nor has she apologised but she has displayed an atrocious attitude and had kept on defiantly persisting with what has been done. in our considered view this is not a case in which any leniency can he shown to the respt. 8. having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the offence of criminal contempt has been fully established as far as the respondent is concerned. we have heard the learned s.p.p. with regard to the quantum of punishment. he has pointed out to us that quite apart from the seriousness of the offences that are the subject matter of this proceeding that the respondent has not only acted defiantly in the course of the hearing but further she has not pointed out anything extenuating in her favour. more importantly, the learned s.p.p. has brought it to the notice of the court that as of now there are three other contempt proceedings pending against the respt. before the high court. he therefore submits that this is a fit case in which the maximum punishment provided under the contempt of courts act be awarded to the respt. 9. we have asked the respt. what she desires to say with regard to the question of sentence. she has refused to make any submissions. she has stated that she leaves it entirely to the court. 10. having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this case, this court has no option exception to sentence the respt. to six months' simple imprisonment under the contempt of courts act. this proceeding is accordingly disposed of. 11. the registrar general shall act in accordance with rule 16 for purposes of execution of the sentence awarded by this court. after the order was pronounced, we have put a question to the respt. asking her as to whether she proposes to file any appeal. the answer given was that she does not propose to disclose her decision to this court. under the circumstances, no further orders are necessary. 12. order accordingly.