Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Advocate-General, Andhra Pradesh, ... vs B. Sugunakar Reddy on 25 November, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(3)ALD183, 1998(1)ALT102
Author: R. Bayapu Reddy
Bench: R. Bayapu Reddy
ORDER S. Parivatha Rao, J.
1. This case of Criminal Contempt of the Court of Munsif Magistrate at Ibrahimpatnam in Rangareddy district has arisen on a motion made by the learned Advocate-General on a reference made to the High Court by that Subordinate Court under Rule 5(d) of the Contempt of Court Rules, 1980 read with sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ("the Act" for short). The respondent/contemner is an Advocate by name B. Sugunakar Reddy.
2. The Munsif Magistrate made the order of reference dated 17-10-1996. Therein he stated that on 27-8-1996 at about 2.10 p.m. that Advocate stalled the Court proceedings for about five minutes and insulted him by using disparaging and derogatory words which were very unparliamentary and that had virtually put him in utter shock and dismay. The learned Munsif Magistrate narrated what happened as follows :
"On 27-8-1996 (Tuesday), which was a criminal working day, there were 74 matters listed in the cause list. After attending to the trial work and recording the evidence of the witnesses, I was on the bench till 2.10 p.m. Before retiring to the chambers for lunch break, I took up the bail application in Cr.No.89/1996 of Manchal Police Station. At that juncture Sri Sugunakar Reddy entered the Court Hall and requested the Court to direct Maheshwaram police not to take his accused to Jail as solvency certificates were already filed.
After declining to give oral directions to police I asked Sri Sugunakar Reddy to wait till I complete the hearing on the bail application in Cr.No.89/1996 of Manchal police station for hearing him. Without any provocation, in a fit of anger he outbursted and by raising his voice started shouting at me addressing the Court in singular number. Sri Sugunakar Reddy made disparaging and derogatory attacks on me by using unparliamentary language. He used unparliamentary language..... and insulted me in the presence of Advocates, A.P.P.Gr.II, Sub-Inspector of Police, Vikarabad, Sub-Inspector of Police, Yacharam, Bench Clerk, Process Server, Court constables and number of accused, who entered the Court Hall on hearing the loud voice of Sri Sugunakar Reddy. Sri Sugunakar Reddy stalled the Court proceedings for about five minutes by removing papers, from the hands of Bench Clerk twice which were being handed over to me. Sri Sugitnakar Reddy threatened me that he will see how I will come to Court and work at Ibrahimpatnam".
He stated that he issued show cause notice dated 10-9-1996 to the Advocate to explain within seven days and that the Advocate gave his explanation on 19-9-1996 stating that since he was the complainant any explanation offered would become ineffective and that it would not be considered in fair manner and that it was better to refer the matter to the High Court for enquiry and disposal in due course of law, and that the Advocate did not repent for his behaviour. He also stated that he heard the Advocate on 25-9-1996 and that the advocate stated that there was nothing more for him to submit then what he stated in his explanation.
3, The learned Munsif Magistrate also filed an affidavit dated 17-10-1996 in support of the contempt case. Therein he stated as to what happened on 27-8-1996 as follows :
"That on 27-8-1996 at about 2.10 p.m. while conducting Judicial proceedings in the public Court I was about to take up bail application in Cr.No.89.1996 of Manchal Police Station before retiring to the chambers. At that juncture Sri B. Sugunakar Reddy entered the Court hall and requested the Court to direct Maheshwaram Police not to take the accused in Cr.No.68/1996 of Maheshwaram Police Station to Jail. While declining to give oral directions, I requested Sri B. Sugunakar Reddy to wait till I complete hearing on the bail application in Cr.No.89/1996.
That Sri B. Sugunakar Reddy, without any provocation, in a fit of anger outbursted, started shouting at me in high pitch addressing the Court in singular number and insulted me using derogatory unparliamentary language.....
That Sri B. Sugunakar Reddy for five minutes stalled the Court proceedings by removing the papers from the hands of the Bench clerk twice."
4. The statements of the Advocates, A.P.P. Grade-II, C.D. Clerk of Munsif Magistrate Court, Ibrahimpatnam and Process Server of that Court taken by the learned Munsif Magistrate are also before us. The statement of Sri B. Yugendar Rao, A.P.P. Grade II recorded on 28-8-1996 is, inter alia, as follows :
"Yesterday i.e., 27-8-1996, as usual, I was attending this Court. One witness by name P. Yadaiah was examined in C.C.43/94 and PW2. After the evidence of that witness I was representing the Court to take the rest of the witnesses after lunch. It was around 2.05 p.m. At that time Mr. Sugunakara Reddy, practising Advocate of this Bar represented before this Court to get accepted the sureties in a matter pertaining to Maheshwaram P.S. and requested the Court to direct the police concerned not to take the accused to jail. The Hon'ble Magistrate informed Sri Sugunakara Reddy that the matter was already heard and asked Sri Jaipal Reddy, Advocate to submit his argument on the bail petition. Immediately Mr. Sugunakara Reddy in a fit of anger outburst and started talking at high pitch in unparliamentary and indecent language. He threatened the Magistrate that he will see how the Magistrate works at Ibrahimpatnam. At that time Mr. Venkaiah, Bench Clerk was handing over some papers to the Magistrate. Mr. Sugunakara Reddy obstructed Mr. Venkaiah from handing over the papers to the Magistrate. The incident happened for about half an hour....."
The C.D. Clerk of the Court in his sworn statement stated that the Magistrate already remanded the accused in the case (Crime No.68/96 of P.S. Maheshwaram) in which Mr. Sugunakar Reddy moved the bail petition, and that warrant in Form 59 was also delivered to the police concerned and that bail petition was moved in fact after the warrant was delivered to the police. He further stated that at 1.55 p.m. the learned Magistrate just took up the bail petition of Sri Jaipal Reddy for hearing and at the time Sri Sugunakar Reddy tried to represent to the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate stated that he would take up the matter after he heard Sri Jaipal Reddy's matter; then Mr. Sugunakar Reddy said "how can you keep my representation aside and take up Sri Jaipal Reddy's matter, in bailable cases do the accused go to jail; what work do you do; I will see how many days you will be at Ibrahimpatnam". The Advocates in their sworn statements more or less stated that Sri Sugunakar Reddy represented to the learned Magistrate that they accused in his bail petition (in which bail was already granted) was being taken away by the police to the jail and requested him to consider the sureties for acceptance in the matter and meanwhile direct the police not to take the accused but that the learned Magistrate did not agree and expressed as to what he could do as the matter was already heard; and that thereafter when the learned Magistrate asked Sri Jaipal Reddy to submit his arguments in his bail petition, Sri Sugunakar Reddy flared up in a fit of anger and started talking at high pitch in an unparliamentary language.
5. Though the occurrence took place on 27-8-1996 and the learned Magistrate sent his report dated 17-10-1996 along with his affidavit, the present contempt case supported by affidavit of the Section Officer in the Office of the learned Advocate General was presented only on 12-8-1997. It was admitted on 21-8-1997. We have to take it from that cognizance was taken.
6. The respondent-contemner appeared on 18-9-1997 and gave his affidavit dated 25-9-1997. He denied having shouted at the Magistrate and denied using unparliamentary language. He also stated that he did not interfere with the Court's work by removing the papers from the hands of the Bench Clerk and by threatening the Magistrate stating how he would come to work at Ibrahimpatnam. He stated that he was residing at Malakpet, Hyderabad since February, 1996, and that prior to that only he was residing at Ibrahimpatnam. He further stated that after shifting his residence to Hyderabad he used to attend the Munsif Magistrate's Court at Ibrahimpatnam twice or so in a week. As regards what happened on 27-8-1996 in the learned Munsif Magistrate's Court at Ibrahimpatnam, the respondent states as follows :
"When I was in my office, I have received instructions in one Criminal Case in Crime No.68/96 of Maheshwaram P.S. Offences under Section 447 and 427 I.P.C. to move a bail application on behalf of accused. Accordingly I have given instructions to my junior colleague and clerk to look into the said matter as the offence was bailable one. They rushed to the Court and filed necessary bail application in the said matter. In the meantime I was called by my colleague to the Court as to make representation in the said matter as the Magistrate has specifically signed on the remand warrant in that particular matter, though the other case in Crime No.89/96 of P.S. Manchal was also under consideration for bail along with our bail application. The offence in Crime No.89/96 is also bailable one. On receiving the said call from my colleague I went to the Court to make representation in the matter of the said bail application. It was 1.50 p.m. By that time when I reached to the Court a Calendar Case No.43/94 trial was going on. The said trial of the case on that day ended by 2.10 p.m. Having expectation of the Magistrate about to retire into the chambers for lunch I have obtained permission of the Court by saying 'with your Honour's kind permission' then the Court permitted me saying that 'Cheppandi' upon which I started my submission regarding the readiness to furnish adequate sureties and abide by the conditions if any, in the matters of the case then I was restrained by the Magistrate in middle of my submission saying that 'there is no need to hear you in the matter, because I have already signed on remand warrant of your accused and in due course he will be released on bail. 'Then I requested the Court to allow me to complete my submission. Then the Magistrate said that I will hear you after hearing another bail petition filed by Mr. Jaipal Reddy, Advocate in Crime No.89/96 of P.S. Manchal. This was opposed by me saying that as this Hon'ble Court has permitted me to make my submission, until complete of it -no other case may be taken up, upon which the Magistrate felt insulted and threatened me with dire consequences regarding my career. However the accused person did not send to Jail in Crime No.68/96 of Maheshwaram P.S. but a report has been lodged to the Police, Ibrahimpatnam against me and got registered a false criminal case offences punishable under Sections 228, 353 and 506 I.P.C. in Crime No.92/96 of P.S. Ibrahimpatnam. The concerned police laid a chargesheet against me and the same is numbered as C.C.No.2 of 1997 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Medchal, Rangareddy district and coming up for trial."
7. We have gone through the facts. We minutely examined the statements of the learned Advocates who were in the Court during the time when the occurrence complained of by the learned Munsif Magistrate took place, and the reference made by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Rangareddy district. Considering that the respondent, who was a practising Advocate of 12 years standing, was agitated about his client being taken away by the police to the jail in the city about 30 Kms. away from Ibrahimpatnam, in view of the feet that the remand order was already signed by the learned Magistrate and handed over to the police and the police were reluctant to wait and were preparing to take the accused away, we are inclined to take a lenient view of the entire matter. Had the learned Magistrate shown a little patience and understanding of the situation in which the respondent was placed and had he noticed that he was really trying to see that his elient-the accused, was not unduly harassed, the unfortunate episode would not have come to pass. We do understand the position of the learned Magistrate as well, who completed the trial and perhaps for some reason was wanting to go to his chambers but was anxious before that to deal with yet another bail petition. It is at such times as that, that a Judicial Officer will have to keep the necessary poise and, with an understanding of the human situation presenting itself before him, should react and see that the situation does not go out of control. The learned Magistrate, has himself stated that when the advocate wanted to make a mention, he allowed him to begin and, from what he says, we have to take it that there was certain abruptness in his trying to take up the bail matter without allowing the Advocate to complete the purpose of his invervening as he did.
8. The learned Advocate-General drew our attention to the wise observations of Chief Justice Gajendragadkar in a seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Special Reference No.1 of 1964, , which, we had occasion to refer in another matter of a similar vintage in which he passed orders on 3-11-1997 in Writ Petition No.17840 of 1997, S. Suryaprakash Rao and another v. The Presiding Officer, Family Court, Secunderabad, . The learned Chief Justice said :
"Before we part with this topic, we would like to refer to one aspect of the question relating to the exercise of power to punish for contempt. So far as the Courts are concerned, Judges always keep in mind the warning addressed to them by Lord Atkin in Andre Paul v. Attorney-General of Trinidad, AIR 1936 PC 141. Said Lord Atkind, 'Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer to scrutiny and respectful even though out-spoken comments of ordinary men. 'We ought never to forget that the power to punish for, contempt large as it is, must always be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection. Frequent or indiscriminate use of this power in anger or irritation would not help to sustain the dignity or status of the Court, but may sometimes affect it adversely. Wise Judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach, and by the restraint, dignity and decorum which they observe in their judicial conduct."
We also referred to the following observations of Krishna Iyer, J. in S. Mulgaokar's case, AIR 1978 SC 727 at 737.
"..... not to be hypersensitive even where distortions and criticisms overstep the limits, but to deflate vulgar denunciation by dignified bearing, condescending indifference and repudiation by judicial rectitude."
We observed as follows in S. Suryaprakash Rao 's case (supra) :
"The Bar plays a very important role in the justice delivery system. For the even functioning of the Court there should be harmony between the Bench and the Bar because both are partners in the quest for justice. For the maintenance of this harmony, judges should nip in the bud avoidable discord between the Bench and the Bar, A pre-requisite for this is that the Bar also is required to conduct itself in a responsible manner. A member of the Bar must uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court and must not do anything to bring the Court itself into disrepute (Lalit Mohan Das v. Advocate General, Orissa, )."
9. Advocate-General states that after going through all the material and the reference made by the learned Magistrate, he finds that this is a matter where the Court should not take too serious a view and that the contempt proceedings should be dropped, in view of the apology, though of sorts, expressed by the respondent standing before us as the contemner. Nonetheless, we have to note, as we did in the case of S. Suryaprakash Rao and another, (supra), that whatever the provocation, whatever the urge pressing as it may be, learned Counsel of the profession should address the Court with due respect and maintain the decorum and should not do or say anything unbecoming or demeaning the dignify of the Court.
10. We find that the respondent, in all probability, exceeded the limits of propriety and disturbed the solemnity and violated the dignity of the Court by using unparliamentary language, if the statements of his peers in the profession are to be accepted - and there is no good reason why they should not be accepted. But we also find that the respondent was frustrated, apart from being humiliated, because the learned Magistrate was not inclined to direct the police to wait till the sureties were cleared and that meant that the accused, in a bailable offence, even after bail was granted and was ready with sureties, would be taken away to jail 30 Kms. away at Hyderabad, which in turn would mean that the accused would be put to serious harassment because of further loss of personal liberty for considerable time. The learned Magistrate would have done well if this prime factor was not allowed to escape his attention and he had given a thought to this vital consideration. instead, he became upset and because of his pre-conceived notions about the advocate -that he was "a quarrelsome person", quarrelled with the Advocates, staff of the Court and Police and that he attacked him (the learned Magistrate) only with an intention to threaten him and blackmail him (as stated in para 4 of the reference order) - he seemed to have acted impulsively in refusing or delaying to consider the matter of the respondent with the urgency that it required. The respondent may be, for all we know, all that the learned Magistrate thought he was. But a judicial officer should train himself to tackle such Advocates as well with aplomb and without losing his cool. The respondent appeared before us in person and he was restrained.
11. It is this aspect of the matter i.e., the anxiety of the respondent to see that his client, the accused, was not taken away by the police in a bailable offence inspite of the bail being granted and he being ready with sureties, which made the learned Advocate General to urge before us that we should take a lenient view even though the respondent might have crossed the 'Lakshmana Rekha' and which, in the ultimate analysis, persuaded us to close this petition with a warning and admonition to the respondent.
12. We are of the view, therefore, that this is a fit case to caution the respondent to control himself and to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Court while pressing the causes of his clients arrayed before the Court, whatever the provocation. We warn him not to repeat. With this admonition we close this matter, in view of what the learned Advocate General himself, as leader of the Bar, expressed.