Kerala High Court
Bar Council Of Kereala vs Saju on 22 December, 2000
Author: Kurian Joseph
Bench: Kurian Joseph
ORDER K.K. Usha, C.J.
1. A complaint has been received from Sri. P.K. Soyuz, Advocate, High Court of Kerala, addressed to the President/Secretary, District Bar Association dated 15.11.2000 alleging that Sri. Soyuz and his colleague Advocate A. Satheesh Kumar of Karunagappally Bar were illegally detained by Sri. S. Saju, Sub Inspector of Police, Chavara Police Station on the varanda of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally. The above complaint was forwarded by the Kerala High Court Advocates Association to the Chief Justice along with a copy of their resolution requesting action in the matter. It is alleged that the two advocates were in robs and they were representing the accused in C.C. No. 752/98 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. Karunagappally. According to the complaint, the above mentioned two advocates were prevented by the Sub Inspector of Police from entering the Court Hall of JFCMC, Karunagappally and they were showered with abuses. They were also threatened with dire consequences. It was only after the intervention of other advocates of Karunagappally Bar and the people assembled in front of the Court Hall on seeing the commotion, the advocates could enter the Court Hall. They had made a complaint before the learned Magistrate about the incident. A written complaint was filed on 15.11.2000.
2. The allegation is that the Sub Inspector of Police, Chavara Police Station, Sri. S. Saju has committed contempt of court by his above action. When the representation of the Ernakulam Bar Association along with the complaint made by the advocates were taken up, we heard the President of the Advocates' Association Sri. Abraham Vakkanal and teamed Government Pleader on the procedure to be adopted in this case.
3. Three orders passed by two learned Judges of this Court in this matter were brought to our notice. They are orders in Crl.MC. No. 419/2000 dated 28.1.2000, Crl.M.C. No. 2448/2000 dated 30.5.2000 and Crl. M.C. No. 5874/2000 dated 10.11.2000. In these cases, learned Single Judges have taken the view that the Subordinate Court has no jurisdiction to issue notice directly to the alleged condemner while proceeding under S. 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It has been held that the proper procedure is to refer the matter to this Court. In the light of the above, notices issued to the alleged condemner by the Subordinate court were quashed as having been issued without jurisdiction.
4. We are afraid that we cannot agree with the above view. R. 8 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides for the procedure to be followed before a reference is made by the Subordinate Court under S. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. R. 8 mandates that before making a reference under S. 15 of the Act, the subordinate Court may hold such inquiry as it deems fit into the circumstances leading to the reference. It also provides that such reference shall contain, (a) the name and address of the person alleged to have committed the contempt, (b) the facts constituting the alleged contempt, (c) the circumstances leading to the reference, (d) all the relevant records, and (e) draft charges.
5. The above would make it clear that before making a reference, the Subordinate Court itself has to conduct an enquiry and only after it is satisfied that there is a case made out for reference to this Court, it can make the reference. While making the reference, apart from the other documents and details referred in R. 8(ii), even the draft charges are to be framed and sent along with the reference by the Subordinate Court. For conducting an enquiry, necessarily, the Subordinate Court has to issue notice to the alleged condemner. It is open to the Subordinate Court to take the statements of the complainants and the alleged condemners in the course of the enquiry contemplated under R. 8(i).
6. We therefore over-rule the view taken in the orders in Crl. M.C. Nos. 419/2000, 2448/2000 and 5874/2000 and hold that the Subordinate Court can issue notice to the alleged condemner directing him to show cause why contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against him, as it is pan of the enquiry contemplated under sub-r. (i) of R. 8.
7. We direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally to conduct an enquiry into the complaint submitted by the two advocates on 15.11.2000 as contemplated under sub-r. (i) of R. 8 and take further steps in accordance with the Rules.
Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate. Karunagappally for appropriate action.
8. Post the Contempt of Court Case after one month.