Patna High Court
Janardan Prasad Mandal vs State Of Bihar on 10 July, 1969
Equivalent citations: 1970CRILJ649
ORDER M.P. Verma, J.
1. The sole petitioner, Janardan Prasad Mandal said to be a District Prosecutor at Deoghar, has been found guilty under Section 228 of the Penal Code, read with Section 480 of the Criminal P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. This order of conviction and sentence was passed by Shri A.K. Chatterji, Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar, on the 23rd July, 1968. His order shows that, while he was sitting in Court in the midst of a judicial proceeding, this petitioner "intentionally used such language and gestures as were insulting to the Court and violated its dignity. He showed frayed tempers and tried to shut up the Court by interrupting and raising his own voice undully." Thereafter, the learned Sub-divisional Officer began writing the impugned order. He further says that, when he was writing this order, the petitioner "left the Court in a huff saying that he refused to work" in his Court, This also caused a contempt of his Court. The learned Sub-divisional Officer, therefore, took cognizance of offences under Section 228 of the Penal Code, read with Section 480 of the Criminal P. C., and imposed the maximum sentence permissible under Section 480, namely, a fine of Rs. 200/-. There was an appeal to the Sessions Judge of the Santhal Parganas, who, by his order dated the 8th December, 1968, dismissed the appeal,
2. Mrs. D. Lall, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended, and, in my opinion, rightly, that the mandatory provisions of Sections 480 and 481 of the Criminal P. C. have not been followed in this case; and in that view of the matter, the order is illegal and must be set aside. The procedure to be followed in such cases is of a summary nature. The Court or the officer himself becomes the prosecutor and the prosecution witness. It is, therefore, necessary that, in such cases, the defence of the accused must always be ascertained. This has not been done in this case. Under Section 481 of the Criminal P. C, in every such case, "the Court shall record the facts "constituting the offence" and "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." Of course, it may be said that the nature of interruption has been mentioned by the learned sub-divisional Officer when he says that by the shout of the lawyer his work was interrupted or he felt insulted; but he has not given the details as to what statements had been made by the petitioner so that others also may know whether they are derogatory in nature, or whether those statements had been made because the Court itself had remarked in an undignified manner. It is, therefore, clear that the facts constituting the offence are not ascertainable from the records of this case. The nature and stage of the judicial proceeding has also not been indicated, and one cannot say whether the learned Sub-divisional Officer was at that time doing some administrative work, or hearing arguments, or recording evidence, or any such thing. So, the impugned order suffers from this infirmity also.
3. It is also apparent from the records that the sub-divisional officer and the District Prosecutor, namely, the petitioner, were not on good terms from before. From annexure "1" to the revision application, which is a station diary entry No. 285 dated the 14th June 1968, two facts emerge. The owner of the house in which the petitioner was living was a relation of the learned sub divisional officer and he used to tether his cattle on the passage which was meant for going to the road in front of the house of the petitioner, and the allegation was that the place had become dirty and children were afraid to pass through that road because of the cattle tied there. Some protests were made to the owner of the house, but he did not listen to it; rather he insisted that the petitioner should vacate his house. The second point is that the learned Sub-divisional Officer had called this petitioner on the night of the 13th June and asked him to vacate the house. I do not say that these allegations are correct or proved in the case ; but these allegations were made and they are contained in the station diary entry. So there must be some sort of strained feeling between the learned Sub-Divisional officer and this petitioner. It is, perhaps, on that account that even the slightest provocation on the part of the petitioner led the Sub-Divisional Officer to draw up a contempt proceeding against the petitioner. It is also not known from the order whether the petitioner was arguing a case before the Sub-divisional Officer when this occurrence took place, or he was present there for some other work.
4. As regards the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 481 of the Criminal P. C., the matter had once come up before the Judicial Commissioner of Tripura in the State v. Bhabesh Chandra Das AIR 1963 Tripura 50, who observed that in a proceeding under Section 480, Criminal P. C., in respect of an alleged contempt under Section 228 of the Penal Code, it is necessary for the Court to state to the accused the particulars of the offence of which he is accused and to give an opportunity to him of explaining and correcting any misapprehension as to what had in fact, been said or meant by him. It is only after affording this opportunity that the Court should make up its mind whether any intentional insult was offered. This opportunity is all the more necessary to be given in a summary proceeding under Section 480 as the Court itself is the prosecutor and the prosecution witness and there is to be no trial or examination of witnesses and the only opportunity for the accused to make a statement is in reply to the question put to him under Section 342, Criminal P. C. The failure to do so amounts to miscarriage of justice and is fatal to the proceedings. Similar observations were made in the case of Ramnath v. State AIR 1963 All 59. I think the mandatory provisions of Section 481, Criminal P. C, should have been fully considered by the learned Sessions Judge, who has really side-tracked the issue. When all the facts and circumstances are taken into account, I think the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was rather too hasty in drawing up the proceeding and deciding it at once. His order is, therefore, unsustainable,
5. In the result, the application in revision succeeds and is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the learned Sub-divisional Officer is set aside. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner.