Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Advocate-General Of Andhra Pradesh vs Chennamsetty Chakrapani C.I. Of Police ... on 30 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(3)ALD588, 1997(2)ALD(CRI)92, 1997(3)ALT328, 1997(2)APLJ54, 1997CRILJ3333
Author: B.S. Raikote
Bench: B.S. Raikote, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
JUDGMENT B.S. Raikote, J.
1. This Contempt Case is taken up on the file on the basis of the report submitted by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda. According to the report a complaint was given by Tammisetti Yedukondalu, PW 4 on 20-8-1994 under Section 97 of Cr.P.C. alleging that his two sons Sri T. Hari Babu and Sri T. Srinu were illegally detained in old Guntur Police Station. The said complaint was registered in Crl.M.P. No. 2368 of 1994 and an Advocate Commissioner Sri M. Kameshwar Rao, PW 1, was appointed with a search warrant to inspect the lock up at the Police Station premises of the Old Guntur Police Station, and Sri D. V. Ramana Rao, Junior Assistant of the same Court was directed to assist the Advocate Commissioner in executing the search warrant issued by that court. It is further stated in the report that the Advocate Commissioner reported to the Magistrate that they were assaulted and restrained from executing the search warrant and the two sons of the petitioner were found in the Police Station lock up. At that time the constable Sri D. Kondaiah, 1st respondent herein was available at the police station and he refused to receive the search warrant. Later, the Inspector of Police came to the police station and forcibly caught hold of the hands of the Advocate Commissioner and assaulted him. He also made him to sit on a chair by restraining him not to move. He also ordered the conferment of the complaint (P.W 4) who followed advocate Commissioner to the police station to identify his sons. The said Inspector of Police (R-2) pressurised the Advocate Commissioner to give the proceedings that the sons of the complainant were not in the lock up. Thereafter the Advocate Commissioner and the complainant were let off. The Advocate Commissioner accordingly filed a complaint on 24-8-1994 under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act before the Munsif Magistrate Court, Vinukonda. The Court took the said complaint on file and recorded the sworn statement of the Advocate Commissioner and the Court clerk and other witnesses who were present and accordingly referred the matter to the High Court through the District Judge, Guntur. This Court by taking cognizance of the case on the basis of the report of the Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda, issued notice to the respondents directing them to appear before the Court to answer the charge of the Contempt of Court viz., "for violating the orders of the Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda in Crl.M.P. No. 2406 of 1994, dated 6-2-1995, pursuant to the orders in Crl.P. No. 627 of 1995 by obstructing the Advocate Commissioner from discharging his duties and wrongfully restraining the Advocate Commissioner by absuing in unparliamentary language and also by asssaulting him. "In pursuance of the said notice the R-1 and the R-2 have appeared and the R-1 filed a detailed counter and the same has been adopted by the R-2. In the counter the respondents pleaded that R-1 was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1970 and on the basis of the efficiency shown by him, he was promoted in the year 1984 as Inspector of Police which office the respondent was holding at the relevant point of time. It is also stated that R-1 was awarded Uttamseva Pathakam by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and also by the President of India and later he was a receipient of Mahonnathaseva Pathakam on the eve of Andhra Pradesh Formation Day Celebration of the year 1984. He stated that he was also awarded police medal by the President of India in the year 1988. It is stated that R-1 was noted for his remarkable integrity, honesty and sincerity in discharging his duties. On 16-7-1994 at about 8.50 p.m. it was reported by one Pavaluru Prasad Rao of Munugar village that some unknown offenders committed theft of his suit case containing gold, ornaments and cash of Rs. 50,000/- besides share certificates, and some clothes all worth about Rs. 1,25,000/- in a bus going to Bhadrachalam bearing No. APX 1156. The said complaint was referred to the Old Guntur Police Station on 17-7-1994 and the same was registered in Crime No. 251 of 1994 for an offence under Section 379, of I.P.C., and R-1 took up the investigation of the said case. Meanwhile on credible information that the culprits were wandering in Guntur Railway Station R-1 left the Old Guntur Police Station at 4.30 p.m. along with the mediators and arrested Mr. T. Hari Babu and Sri T. Srinu and seized gold ornaments with suitcase all worth Rs. 75,000/- under a mahazar. The said accused persons confessed that their father T. Yedukondalu (P.W. 4) was in possession of the share certificate and clothes and other valuables and on their confession PW 4 was impleaded as A-3. But, the said T. Yedukondalu was absconding and he could not be traced. Sri T. Hari Babu and Sri T. Srinu (sons of PW 4) were brought to Old Guntur Police Station at about 6.30 p.m. on 20-8-1994 and they were arrested at 5 p.m. When he came to the police station at about 6.30 p.m. he was informed by the R-2 about the registration of the crime in Cr. No. 59/94 for an offence under Section 353 of I.P.C. r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. in respect of the assault made to him by the Advocate Commissioner, Sri M. Kameshwar Rao (PW 1 herein) and also by the Advocate of PW. 4 by name Sri Venki Reddy (PW 3). R-1 further stated that these things have happened in his absence at about 6 p.m. He was also told that another constable by name Thirupathaiah and head constable Sri L. Jakraiah (RW 3) have witnessed the said incident. In the counter it is further stated that after completing the investigation in Cr. No. 59/94 the Sub-Inspector of Police of Old Guntur Police Station has filed a charge sheet on 28-10-1994 in C.C. No. 310/94 against PWs 2 and 3 for the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C r/w Section 34 and the same was pending. It is further stated that Sri T. Hari Babu and Sri T. Srinu were remanded to judicial custody by the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate on 21-8-1994 and at that time they have not complained anything before the Magistrate.
2. The respondents further stated that on 20-8-1994 at about 6.30 p.m. the Advocate Commissioner approached the R.-1 with the Court clerk for the release of Sri T. Hari Babu and Sri T. Srinu who were wanted in Cri No. 252/94. At that time R-1 told PWs. 2 and 3 that he had to arrest Sri T. Yedukondalu (PW 4) who was A-3 in Cr. No. 252/94 for the purpose of investigation and interrogation. At that point of time PWs 2 and 3 did not allow him to arrest Sri T. Yedukondalu (PW 4) on the contrary both of them have abused R-1 in filthy language and also behaved in high handed manner by raising their vocies and also they have threatened him that they would foist a false case against R-1 in the event he arrested Sri T. Yedukondalu. It is stated that PWs. 2 and 3 threatened R-1 that they would inflict injuries on themselves and after obtaining the wound certificate from the Government Doctor they would file a false case against R-1. It is further stated that the allegation made against R-1 that he acted in highhanded manner towards the Advocate Commissioner was false. He further added that the Advocate Commissioner himself made a complaint to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 20-8-1994. The said complaint was registered in C.C. No. 2/94. Against the said proceedings R-1 preferred Cri.P. No. 267 of 1995 to this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. But, in the meanwhile the said complaint in C.C. No. 2/94 was dismissed for default for the non-appearance of the complainant's Advocate Commissioner. In these circumstances, it is submitted that Crl. Petition No. 627/95 filed before this Court by R-1 was withdrawn and accordingly it was dismissed as withdrawn on 29-7-1995 with a liberty to raise all such contentions at appropriate stage.
3. It is further submitted in the counter that in Crl.A.P. No. 2406/94, in which the search warrant was issued, the R-1 appeared on 26-6-1995 and filed a petition to grant short time for filing the counter, but it was dismissed. Thereafter he filed a detailed counter along with an application but the same was not accepted on the ground that the proceedings were closed on 26-8-1995 and the records have already been submitted to the High Court under Contempt of Courts Act. At that point of time R-1 questioned the said order of the Magistrate dated 26-8-1995 before this Court in Cr.P. No. 4307/95 but the said criminal petition was disposed of at the admission stage on the ground that the contention of the R-1 of no opportunity etc. could be raised when the case would be registered against him and as such it was not a fit case for quashing the impugned proceedings.
4. In the counter it is further stated that the learned Magistrate has been swayed away by the incorrect allegations made by the Advocate Commissioner against the respondents. In view of the fact that a criminal case has been registered against the Advocate Commissioner under S. 353, r/w Section 34 of I.P.C., as a counter blast the Advocate Commissioner has made incorrect allegations against the respondents. It is stated that the respondents never disrespected the warrant issued by the learned Magistrate and they have always held the orders of the Court in high esteem and respondents have discharged their duty with courtesy and decency and the case put up by Advocate Commissioner was a false case. It is further submitted that the Advocate Commissioner has not sought for restoration of the criminal case filed against the R-1 and other constables, under Section 353, 341 and 506 of I.P.C. in C.C. No. 2/94 and there fore the doctrine of estoppel operates as a bar for taking contempt proceedings against the respondents. In the counter it is further stated that the respondents have not disrespected the orders of the Magistrate and they have never ordered the Advocate Commissioner to stay in the Police Station and never raised any voice against him and never used any unparliamentary language, nor they have assaulted the Advocate Commissioner. It is further stated that the R-1 never told the Advocate Commissioner to give in writing that Sri T. Hari Babu and Sri T. Srinu were not found in the station lock up room. It is further stated that R-1 never got wild and never pushed the Advocate Commissioner into the chair nor tortured PW 4 or T. Haribabu or T. Srinu, for they have kept them in wrongful confinment for 10 days. On the basis of these allegations the respondents prayed for dropping of the Contempt proceedings.
5. Vide order dated 26-3-1996 this court directed the learned District Judge, Guntur to record the evidence of the witnesses produced in support of the report of the Magistrate and also the witnesses produced on behalf of the contemnors. This Court also directed the District Judge to give a reasonable opportunity to the parties to cross-examine the witnesses and file such documents as they deem it necessary. This Court further directed the District Judge to appoint amicus curiae to lead the evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses. In obedience to these directions of this Court the District and Sessions Judge, Guntur recorded the evidence of PW 1 to 4 produced in support of the petitioner i.e. the Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the evidence of R.W. 1 to 4 produced on behalf of the respondents/contemnors. Ex. A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the respondent/contemnors. On the receipt of the said records the copies of the relevant records were made available to the respondent/contemnors and thereafter the respective counsel were heard.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the Advocate General submitted that on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence of PWs 1 to 4 it is established that the respondents have committed the contempt of the Court under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. On the other hand the learned counsel Sri A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, counsel for the respondents, contended that on the basis of the evidence of the respondents it is established that the case set up by the Advocate Commissioner is not correct and accordingly the contempt proceedings are liable to be dropped. He further submitted that at any rate the dismissal of the complaint filed by the Advocate Commissioner in C.C. No. 2 of 1994 operates as estoppel or a bar for taking contempt proceedings against the respondents. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to drop the contempt proceedings.
7. On the basis of the contentions of the parties the following points arise for our consideration :
Point No. 1 : Whether as pleaded by the respondent the dismissal of the complaint filed by PW. 2 for default in C.C. No. 2/94 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur operates as an estoppel or a bar for taking contempt proceedings against the respondents.
Point No. 2 : Whether, on the basis of the evidence on record, respondents have committed the Contempt of Court under Sections 12, r/w Section 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act by obstructing and wrongfully restraining the Advocate Commissioner and also abusing and insulting him in an unparliamentary language on 20-8-1994, while such Commissioner was discharging his duties in executing a warrant issued by the Munsif Magistrate Court, Vinukonda in Cr.M.P. No. 2460/90 dated 6-10-1995 pursuant to the orders in Crl.P. No. 627/95.
Point No. 1 : Highlighting the first point the learned counsel for the respondents Sri A.T.M. Rangaramanujam conteded that in view of the dismissal of the private complaint filed by PW 2 in C.C. No. 2/94 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda the present contempt petition is hit by the doctrine of estoppel and as such the present contempt petition field by PW 2 in the Court below is liable to be dismissed. He elaborated the point by contending that the learned Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda has referred the matter to the High Court on the basis of an affidavit filed by PW 2 and such an affidavit amounts to a complaint filed by PW 2 and hence such a complaint would be barred not only under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. but also on the principle of Doctrine of Estoppel. In support of his argument he relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Madras in "Ponnuswamy v. Venkatachalam" (1977 Cri LJ 431) and judgments of the High Court of Calcutta in "Suchana Roy v. Paresh Kr. Ray" 1978 Cri LJ 555 and "G. C. Biswas v. State of West Bengal" and also the judgment of this Court in "K. F. Hussain v. S. A. Saheb" (1988) 1 Andh LT 500. As against this argument the learned Advocate General submitted that the contempt proceeding has been initiated by this Court not regarding any of the offences contemplated under I.P.C. but regarding the substantial interference with the due course of justice and judicial proceedings thereby lowering the authority and dignity of the Court. He further submitted that an offence contemplated under Section 12, r/w Section 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act is different from a similar offence contemplated by the I.P.C. Therefore, neither the doctrine of estoppel nor the principle of res judicata applies to such a case. In support of his argument he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in "Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras" and two Division Bench judgments of this Court in "Mch v. Mirza Yassin Ali Baig" (1996) 2 Andh LD 61 : (1996 Cri LJ 3024) and in "Advocate General v. Dr. A. Gopal" (1996) 2 Andh LD 303 : (1996 Cri LJ 3724).
8. We have given anxious consideration to the case. It is not in dispute that the Advocate Commissioner, PW 2, had filed a private complaint in C.C. No. 2/94 and the said complaint was dismissed for default. It is further stated by PW 2 in his evidence that after the dismissal of the complaint for default in C.C. No. 2/94 he preferred a Criminal Petition before this Court and the said Criminal Petition was returned for filing an affidavit in support of the petition. But, thereafter he has not refiled the papers. From this fact, it is clear that the order of dismissing the private complaint in C.C. No. 2/94 by the Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda has become final. Now, we have to consider as to what is the effect of the dismissal of C.C. No. 2/94 on the present contempt proceedings or whether the doctrine of estoppel applies to the present proceedings.
9. As we have already noted above that this contempt case is a taken up case on the basis of the report submitted by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda. It is stated in the said report that a complaint was filed by PW 2 under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act on 24-8-1994 and on the basis of this complaint filed under Contempt of Courts Act he recorded the sworn statement of the Advocate Commissioner and the Court clerk and other witnesses who were physically present at the time of the offence and he has referred the matter to the High Court. The relevant part of the report is extracted as under :
"I have submitted the entire material in the reference Ist cited, after recording the statements and nature of the alleged offence and place of offence, having come to the conclusion that the offence falls under Section 15(1) of Contempt of Courts Act as the respondents violated the court orders and in addition committed other offences punishable under Indian Penal Code, i.e. Sections 228 and 342 etc. outside the jurisdiction of this Court."
From this report it is clear that the Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda has registered a separate criminal case for the offences under Section 228 and 342 of I.P.C. and he also initiated contempt proceedings under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act by submitting his report to the High Court. C.C. No. 2/94 related to the alleged offences under Sections 228 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the report "the respondents violated the Court orders and in addition committed the other offence punishable under the I.P.C. i.e. under Sections 228 and 343 of I.P.C. etc. From this report it is clear that prima facie, the dismissal of the complaint filed under Sections 228 and 343 of I.P.C. is entirely different proceedings and it has nothing to do with the contempt of proceedings which are now pending before us. Hence, the dismissal of the said complaint filed by PW 2 for the offences under Sections 228 and 342 of I.P.C. absolutely has no consequence on the present contempt proceedings. Moreover C.C. No. 2/94 is a private complaint filed by PW 2 and its dismissal for default does not bind the court, which has initiated the present proceedings, much less to this Court under the contempt of Courts Act. The complaint, that is dismissed for default was the one for the offences under Sections 228 and 342 of I.P.C. with different ingredients. According to Section 228 of I.P.C. "whoever intentionally offers any insult or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of judicial proceedings, shall be punishable with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/-, or with both. "As per this section "the interruption" that is contemplated is to a public servant but in the instant case contempt proceedings are not initiated for that purpose. The purpose for which the present proceedings are initiated are regarding the criminal contempt committed by the respondent in terms of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under :
"2.(c) "Criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which -
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tend to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
This kind of criminal contempt is not made an offence under I.P.C. The object of contempt proceedings is to vindicate the dignity of the Court but not to satisfy the vengeance of any private individual. It aims at preventing any interference with the administration of justice, and there is no provision in the I.P.C. making such interference with administration of justice an offence. Therefore, the bar contemplated under the provision to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act (extracted as under) : that "No High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code."
also does not apply to a situation of this type. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ramkrishna Reddy v. State of Madras" (1952 Cri LJ 832) supra distinguished the scope of Contempt of Courts Act and the similar offenece in I.P.C. by observing that "In our opinion, the sub-section referred to above excludes the jurisdiction of High Court only in cases where the acts alleged to constitute contempt of a subordinate Court are punishable as contempt under specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code but not where these acts merely amount to offences of other description for which punishment has been provided for in the Indian Penal Code. This would be clear from the language of the subs-section which uses the words "where such contempt is an offence" and does not say "where the act alleged to constitute such contempt is an offence." It is argued that if such was the intention of the Legislature, it could have expressly said that the High Court's jurisdiction will be ousted only when the contempt is punishable as such under the Indian Penal Code. It seems to us that the reason for not using such language in the sub-section may be that the expression" Contempt of Court" has not been used as description of any offence in the Indian Penal Code, though certain acts which would be punishable as contempt of court in England, are made offences under it ...............
It seems, therefore, that there are offences which are punishable as contempt under the Indian Penal Code and as subordinate Courts can sufficiently vindicate their dignity under the provisions of criminal law in such cases the legislature deemed it proper to exclude them from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 2(3), Contempt of Courts Act, but it would not be correct to say that the High Court's jurisdiction is excluded even in cases where the Act complained of, which is alleged to constitute contempt, is otherwise an offence under the Indian Penal Code."
10. From this law declared by the Supreme Court it is clear that the proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court only in cases where the alleged acts constitute contempt of subordinate Courts which are punishable as contempt under specific provisions of I.P.C. which are triable in accordance with the procedure of Section 345 of Cr.P.C. but not such acts which merely amount to an offence of other description for which punishment has not been provided in I.P.C. To the same effect also is the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in "Advocate General v. Dr. A. Gopal" (1996 Cri LJ 3724) supra. In this view of the matter, the dismissal of the private complaint filed by PW 2 for the offences under Sections 228 and 342 of I.P.C. does not come in the way of the present contempt proceedings, nor the doctrine of estoppel applies to such proceedings. The present proceedings as we have already stated above is to vindicate the dignity of the Court but not to satisfy the grievance or grudge of any private individual. For such a situation even Section 300 of Cr.P.C. also does not apply. Moreover the power of this Court to punish a person for a contempt is the one conferred by the Constitution itself and the Contempt of Courts Act is intended only to regulate a procedure for exercising such a power in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in "Sarkar S. K., Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. v. Vinay Chandra" which reads as follows :
"14. Articles 129 and 215 preserve all the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Court, respectively as a Court of Record which include the power to punish the contempt of itself. As pointed out by this Court in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. The State of U.P., , there are no curbs on the power of the High Court to punish for contempt of itself except those contained in the Contempt of Courts Act. Articles 129 and 215 do not define as to what constitutes Contempt of Courts. Parliament has, by virtue of the aforesaid Entries in List I and List III of the Seventh Schedule, power to define and limit the powers of the Courts in punishing contempt of court and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto. Indeed, this is what is stated in the Preamble of the Act of 1971."
In "Waryam Singh v. Sadhu Singh" the Supreme Court further held that "8. ...............
even where the facts of a case disclose an offence which may fall under Section 228, Indian Penal Code, the case may be triable as a contempt under Section 3 of the Act if the acts complained of could not be confined to what would be covered by Section 228 of I.P.C. only."
.................
If the case is considered even from this angle also it is clear that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply to the case since the ingredients of Section 228 of I.P.C. (insulting or interrupting a public servant, sitting in judicial proceedings) or the ingredients of Section 342 of I.P.C. (wrongful confinement) are entirely different from the ingredients of the criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. On the other hand the rulings of the High Court of Madras and Calcutta as referred to above (1), (2), (3) and (4) supra relied upon by respondents' counsel were the cases pertaining to a litigation between the two private parties regarding the offences committed under I.P.C. itself. In those cases the Courts were required to consider the effect of a previous acquittal of the accused, on the same set of facts, whether such acquittal was on merits or due to dismissal for default. It is in that context either Section 345 of Cr.P.C. or Article 20(c) of the Constitution were considered in order to hold that the later proceedings were barred either on the principle of estoppel or on the principle of res judicata. But, they are not the cases in which Article 215, r/w Article 223 of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act were considered, as we have done above. Therefore, those decisions do not apply to the facts of this case.
11. For these reasons we answer the Point No. 1 in the negative by holding that the dismissal of the complaint in C.C. No. 2/94 does not operate as a bar against the present proceedings, initiated by this Court, on the report of the Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda and the doctrine of estoppel also does not apply to the case.
Point No. 2 : Regarding point No. 2, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have been examined in order to prove the guilt against the accused. P.W. 1 is the Munsif Magistrate, working at Vinukonda, during the relevant point of time and he is the one who has referred this matter to this Court. Now, we proceed to consider the evidence of these witnesses with reference to the documents on record.
12. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the practising advocates, P.W. 2 was the Advocate Commissioner appointed to execute the search warrant to inspect and find out whether Sri T. Haribabu and Sri. T. Srinu, both sons of Sri. T. Yedukondalu (P.W. 4), were under illegal detention in old Guntur Police Station. P.W. 3 was an advocate appearing for the complainant filed in Crl. M.P. No. 2368/94 in which search warrant was issued. P.W. 2 stated that on 20-8-1944 at about 2.30 p.m. along with P.W. 4 and his advocate (P.W. 3) and Court officer by name Sri D. V. Ramana Rao he went in a jeep to Old Guntur Police Station. He stated that at about 5 p.m. they reached the said police station. When they went inside the police station they found Sri Koteswar Rao (whose name was subsequently corrected as D. Kondaiad) who is R-2 herein. P.W. 2 deposed that he showed the warrant issued by the Munsif Magistrate, Vinukonda and requested R-2 to permit him to search the premises of police station for the presence of Sri. T. Hari Babu and Sri. T. Srinu the R-2 refused to receive the Court order. He stated that at that time himself and the Court Officer Sri. D. V. Ramana Rao (who is said to be no more on the date of evidence) and P.W. 3 and 4 found that both Sri. T. Hari Babu and Sri. T. Srinu in Police lock up. Since R-2 refused to show the police lock up they went and checked the police lock up and at that time Sri. T. Hari Babu and Sri T. Srinu both cried aloud saying "Nanna, Nanna" (father, father). P.W. 2 then asked them to give their names and they said Sri. T. Hari Babu and Sri. T. Srinu as the sons of P.W. 4. P.W. 2 further stated that he asked them since how long they were detained in the police lock up. For that they told that they were in the police lock up for the past 10 days prior to 20-8-1994. They volunteered that police were harassing them both physically and mentally. He further deposed that he asked the R-2 to show the general diary in order to find out as to when and on what grounds they were detained in the police lock up. For the that R-2 told him that the said diary was in the custody of S.I. of Police. At that time R-2 telephoned to R-1 informing that P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have visited the police station along with the search warrant issued to the Court. He deposed that R-2 dragged the complainant, P.W. 4 into the police lock up and detained him along with his son. At that time R-2 told P.W. 2 that the has done so as per the directions of C.I. (R-1). He further deposed that, since the complainant (P.W. 4) was detained in police lock up, himself and P.W. 3 remained in the police station to ascertain the things from R-1. Some time later R-1 came in a maruti car when P.W. 2 was standing in the varandah of the police station. After alighting from the car R-1 cried aloud saying "who was the fellow who brought the search warrant". At that time P.W. 2 showed the search warrant issued by the Court P.W. 2 also protested for using filthy language against him. At that time the contemnor R-1 having become wild abused P.W. 2 in vulgar language and he dragged P.W. 2 by holding his left hand into the inside room and pulled him down into the chair available there. R-2 also raised his hands to assault him. R-1 further directed R-2, to draft a complaint stating that P.Ws. 2 and 3 committed an offence under Sections 452 and 353 of I.P.C. and register a separate case against them. The R-1 also stated that he would teach a lesson to them. P.W. 2 further deposed that he warned R-1 that he was preventing them from executing the warrant and he was using abusive language against them and his action would amount to Contempt of Court. P.W. 2 stood up with a view to come out of the police station, R-1 again made him to sit in the chair telling P.W. 2 and 3 that he already booked a criminal case against them in Cr. No. 59/94 for the offences under Section 353 r/w Section 341 of I.P.C. and later a chargesheet would be got filed by the S.I. of Police. P.W. 2 further deposed that the name of R-2 was not Koteswar Rao and later they came to know that his name was D. Kondaiah. He further deposed that thereafter a criminal case in C.C. No. 10/95 was registered against them for the offences under Section 353, r/w 34 of I.P.C. on the file of IV A.M.M., Guntur. He deposed that the R-1 did not allow him and P.W. 3, to go out of the police station and they were wrongfully confined and P.W. 4 was in the police lock up. When P.W. 2 requested R-1 to receive the Court notice he insisted that he should give in writing that both the sons of P.W. 4 were not present in the police lock up for which he did not agree. Later R-1 went into another room telling P.Ws. 2 and 3 and 4 that they were at liberty to do whatever they intended. P.W. 2 further deposed that thereafter he and P.W. 3 went and sat in the jeep. Meanwhile P.W. 4 also joined them saying that R-1 has released him also. Thereafter all of them returned to Vinukonda. At about 10-30 p.m. all of them went to the house of Munsif Magistrate and narrated the entire incident. P.W. 2 also filed a report before the said Magistrate and Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the said report filed on the same day at about 10-30 p.m. P.W. 2 further deposed that he filed a private complaint on 21-8-1994 as per Ex.A-3 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur registered in C.C. No. 2/94 and his complaint was dismissed on 6-12-1994 for the absence of himself and his counsel Ex.A-4 is the xerox copy of the said judgment. He further deposed that his counsel told him that himself (P.W. 2) and contemnors might have compounded the offence. He stated that he also preferred a revision petition before this Court against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. He further deposed that on 24-8-1994 he filed a petition under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act before the M. M., Vinukonda requesting him to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors and on the basis of the said complaint the Munsif Magistrate, P.W. 1 recorded his sworn statement and also the statement of P.W. 2 and Sri. D. V. Ramana Rao the Court officer and also that of P.W. 4. He stated that the said Sri. D. V. Ramana Rao died about one year back.
13. P.W. 2 has been cross-examined. In the cross-examination P.W. 2 admitted that his revision petition, filed before this Court (being aggrieved by the order passed in C.C. No. 2/94) the office of this Court returned it directing his advocate to represent it along with a sworn affidavit and the said revision petition was not resubmitted by complying with office objections. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately allowed his complaint to go for default and deliberately did not pursue his revision in the High Court as he was aware that he would not succeed in prosecuting the contemnors. He also admitted the suggestion that the Station House Officer and L. & O., PS old Guntur filed C.C. No. 310 of 1995 on the file on the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate. Guntur for offences under Section 353 of I.P.C. both against P.Ws. 2 and 3. He further volunteered that the present two contemnors were cited as witnesses for the prosecution in that case and the said case is still pending. He further stated that before he received summons in C.C. No. 310 of 1995 he came to know that C.C. No. 2/94 filed by him was already dismissed. P.W. 2 denied the suggestion that he did not enter into the police station at 5 p.m. on 20-8-1994 as stated by him. He also stated that the centry constable was present at that time. He stated that he did not follow the telephonic conversation that took place between R-2 and R-1. After the telephone was put down the centry constable i.e. R-2 told him that R-1 has asked R-2 to put the complainant (P.W. 4) into police lock up. P.W. 2 also denied the suggestion that himself and P.W. 3 entered into the police station along with P.W. 4 and the centry constable objected them from straightway going to the police lock up cell without disclosing their identity and the purpose. He also denied that they used objectionable language and pushed the centry constable by neck. He denied the suggestion that Sri Shaik Bude and V. Kasivishwanadha Rao residing in the same locality were present in the police station and witnessed the assault made by P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 on R-2. He also denied the suggestion that in spite of the request made by R-2 and other police personnel they refused to show the warrant to them. He admitted that he allowed P.W. 3 to accompany him since he was an advocate for the complainant. He denied the suggestion that he has filed a false complaint, deliberately making false allegations as a counter blast to the police case in C.C. No. 310 of 1995. He further deposed that he did not inform about this incident to any other person at Guntur but he went along with P.W. 3 to the chambers of the District Judge, Guntur and apprised him of the incident. To the same effect also the evidence of P.W. 3., on all material particulars, in addition to that, he submitted that Ex.A-5 is the certified copy of the petition (along with the affidavit) filed by P.W. 4 in Crl.M.P. No. 2368/94, and Ex.A-6 is the, statement of P.W. 4 recorded by the Munsif Magistrate (P.W. 1). In the cross-examination he stated that he was the advocate who drafted the complaint of P.W. 4, and Ex.D-1 is the certified copy of the affidavit drafted by him, and filed along with the petition under Section 97 of Cr.P.C. and its contents are true. He admitted that warrant did not contain any recital permitting him to accompany P.W. 2 and he further volunteered that he accompanied P.W. 2 to the police station in the interest of his client. He denied the suggestion that all of them went to the lock up cell directly and the centry objected them for not disclosing their identity and the purpose. He also denied the suggestion that they abused the centry constable and pushed him by holding his neck for objecting them going to the police lock up cell. He denied the suggestion that Shaik Bude, R.W. 4 and V. Kashivishwanadha Rao (not examined in the case), who are residents of the same locality, witnessed the incident of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 assaulting R-2 while he was discharging his legitimate duties. He also denied the suggestion that after the arrival of R-1 at 6.30 p.m. on that day, P.Ws. 2 and 4 wanted for the release of the sons of P.W. 4, and for that R-1 told them that, a case was registered against them in Cr. No. 250/94 for the offences under Section 379 of I.P.C., and accordingly the sons of P.W. 4 were arrested near Nanaaz theatre, Guntur. He further denied the suggestion that there was heated discussions between P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 and R-1 and P.W. 2 and 3 have forcibly taken away P.W. 4 by stating that they would file a false case against R-1. He also denied the suggestion that C.C. No. 2/94 was filed by P.W. 2 by way of counter blast as against the police case, in C.C. No. 310 of 1995 (filed against P.Ws. 2 and 3).
14. P.W. 4 stated that he was not present on 10-8-1994 in his house and he returned only on 11-8-1994. On his return his wife and children told him that his sons T. Hari Babu and T. Srinu were taken into custody by the Guntur Old Town Police and Vinukona police in the midnight between 10-8-1994 and 11-8-1994. He immediately went to the Vinukonda Police Station and Guntur old police station and found that his both sons were being locked up in Old Guntur Police Station. He further deposed that he got filed a petition for search warrant and on the same day Munsif Magistrate Court issued search warrant by appointing P.W. 2 as Commissioner and thereafter himself, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and later Sri D. V. Ramana Rao, Court Officer, went in a jeep engaged by him to Guntur Old Police Station. By about 5 p.m., on the same day, they reached the said police station. He further deposed that one police constable was present and did not allow them to search the premises including the police lock up rooms and when they went near the police lock up rooms his sons cried saying nanna, nanna (father, father)'. On enquiries made by P.W. 2 both his sons gave their addresses and they told him that the police have detained them for the past 10 days and they were being harassed and illtreated. He further deposed that the police constable present telephoned to his Officers and after putting down the telephone the said police constable detained him in the police lock up. When the R-1 returned to the police station pushed P.W. 2 down into the chair and they also raised hands to beat P.W. 2 and at about 8 p.m., P.Ws. 2 and 3 were allowed to leave the police station and he was also released later. Thereafter all of them went to the residence of P.W. 1 at about 10.30 p.m., and P.Ws. 2 and 3 appraised P.W. 1 of the entire in matter. In his cross-examination he stated that he told his advocate that about midnight on 10-8-1994 both his sons were taken by the police forcibly, when he was not present in the house. He deposed that he did not know as to how his advocate drafted his affidavit. He also did not know to which police station the police personnel belonged. He further stated that he filed the application on 20-8-1994. He further deposed that on 16-8-1994 he came to know that his sons were detained at police lock up at Old Guntur Police Station and he filed complaint only on 20-8-1994. He denied the suggestion that police suspected his sons as early as 17-8-1994, itself, and he anticipated that his sons would be arrested and as such he filed an application on 20-8-1994. He further deposed that when his sons were produced before the Court he came to know that he was also arrayed as the accused and he obtained an anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court. He denied the suggestion that his sons were arrested only at about 5 p.m. on 20-8-1994 and at about 6 p.m., P.Ws. 2 and 3 went to the police station and hehaved rudely with the police. He also denied the suggestion that all of them rushed to the police lock up cell without showing the warrant to the police personnel present there and the centry constable present objected to their behaviour. He also denied the suggestion that P.Ws. 2 and 3 used abusive language against the police personnel and assaulted the police constable. He denied the further suggestion that as a counter blast to the case filed by the police, against P.Ws. 2 and 3, they in turn filed another criminal case against the police. He admitted the suggestion that the criminal case filed against his sons and himself was still pending, and P.W. 2 gave evidence, as their defence a witness, on the basis on the summons got issued by the Court on his behalf.
15. As against this evidence the contemnors have examined in all four witnesses. Rs-1 and 2 have examined themselves as R.Ws. 1 and 2. R.W. 3 Sri L. Jakraiah, the head constable and R.W. 4 Shaik Bude, the owner of the scrap shop, were examined as the persons being present at the time of the incident.
16. R.W. 1 stated the he was recruited as S.I. of Police in the year 1970 and he was promoted in the year 1984. He obtained a M.A. degree in literature and also obtained a law degree. He stated that he was awarded Uttamseva Pathakam by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1986 and Mahonnathaseva Pathakam in the year 1984 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and he was also awarded Indian Police Medal by the President of India in the year 1988. He has deposed practically reiterating whatever he has stated in the counter. He stated that on 16-7-1994 one Prasad Rao had given a complaint, complaining theft of jewellery and cash and a cash certificate while he was travelling in A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. He stated that at bus stand, Guntur, when he went away to purchase biscuits, the suit case in which the above things were kept was stolen, even though his wife was sitting in the bus. On this complaint a case was registered on 17-7-1994 at Old Guntur Police Station for the offences under Section 379 of I.P.C. R.W. 1 further deposed that he took up the investigation into the case. When we went along with the mediators near the cycle stand of the railway station, he found two persons in suspicious circumstances and he arrested them. They were T. Hari Babu and T. Srinu. T. Hari Babu was in possession of the suit case and accordingly he seized the suit case under panchanama. R.W. 1 further stated that accused told him that some clothes and cash certificates and some cash was given to their father, P.W. 4. Ex.D-2 is the photostat copy of the FIR and Ex.P-3 is case diary drafted by him in that regard Ex.D-4 is the certified copy of the mazhar drafted by him for arrest of the said persons and seizure of the articles referred to above. Ex.D-5 is the CC of remand report, filed on 21-8-1994. Since it was a holiday the Magistrate made an endorsement directing the police constable to produce the accused on 22-8-1994. He further deposed that the culprits were arrested at 5 p.m. on 20-8-1994 and they were brought to the police station at about 6.30 p.m. and they were detained in the police lock up. After he entered into the police station along with the police personnel, P.Ws. 2 and 3 entered into the police station and asked him to release both the culprits and for that he told them that they have been arrested and they would be sent to judicial remand. At that point of time he was told by R-2 that both P.Ws. 2 and 3 assaulted him and the said constable also lodged a complaint before the sub-Inspector for an offence under Section 353 of I.P.C., Ex.D-3 is the CC of FIR lodged by the R-2, registered in Crime No. 59/94. R.W. 1 further stated that the centry constable D. Kondaiah told him that Shaik Bude, head constable Jakhriah and constable Tirupathaiah and some of the outsiders witnessed the assault made by P.Ws. 2 and 3 on R-2. He deposed that P.Ws. 2 and 3 became angry against him and scolded him for not releasing the sons of P.W. 4. R.W. 1 further stated that he did not arrest P.W. 4, as P.Ws. 2 and 3 told him that they along with P.W. 4 came from the Court. Further P.Ws. 2 and 3 did not allow him to take P.W. 4. into custody. He stated that P.W. 2 told him that they would foist a false case against him on the basis of the self-inflicted injuries. He deposed that P.W. 2 did not show him the search warrant issued by the Court and thereafter P.Ws. 2 to 4 went away . In the cross-examination he stated that the centry police constable has got powers to allow others to enter into the police station and the R-2 told him that P.Ws. 2 and 3 did not show him the search warrant issued by the Court. He denied the suggestion that the centry constable telephoned him and sought his instructions over telephone. He also stated that he filed counter affidavit before the High Court and also before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vinukonda. But, the J.F.C.M., Vinukonda did not receive his counter. He stated that in his counter affidavit he did not state about the presence of Shaik Bude and other outsiders at the time of this offence and even in his C.D. he did not mention about the presence of Shaik Bude and others when PWs. 2 and 3 said to have assaulted R-2. He denied the suggestion that the said culprits were kept in police lock up for the past several days and he abused PWs. 2 and 3 when they came to the police station in the discharge of their legal duties. He denied the suggestion that he has created all the records including the alleged arrest of the culprits. He admitted that other persons who received Rs. 50,000/- from out of the amounts stolen by the two culprits also committed cognizable offence but he did not register the case against them. He stated that he did not know what prevented P.W. 2 from withholding the search warrant without showing it to the Rs. 1 and 2.
17. R.W. 2, D. Kondaiah was said to be the centry constable of the police station in question at 5 p.m., on 20-8-1994 when P.Ws. 2, 3, and 4 and the Court clerk entered into the police station. He deposed that these persons tried to go to police lock up directly and at that time there was another constable by name Tirupathaiah. He stated that when he asked P.Ws. 2 and 3 they told them that they were advocates practising at Vinukonda and they have brough search warrant from J.F.M.C., Vinukonda and when he asked them to show the search warrant they did not show it to him. He further stated that P.W. 2 caught hold of his neck and pushed him away and P.W. 3 went to the police lock up and came back saying no one was present in the police lock up and it was 6 p.m. He stated that one Sri Jakharaiah was the station writer who was present then and he questioned PWs. 2 and 3 for their highhanded act in nocking P.W. 2. down. The said Jakharaiah also asked P.W. 2 to show the search warrant and the Court clerk gave the names of PWs. 2 and 3 as Kameshwar Rao and Venki Reddy respectively. He further stated that after P.Ws. 2 and 3 went away R-1 came there and while he was narrating the incident to him, SI (Crimes) and other constables came in a jeep and they brought two culprits also. Then, both the advocates and the Court clerk went to R-1 and he went towards police lockup. He further deposed that he gave a complaint to Mastan, SI of police against PWs. 2 and 3 as they assualted him and necessary C.D. entries were also made. Ex.D-7 is the photostat copy of the C.D. entries dt. 28-4-1994 and on his representation a criminal case was registered against P.Ws. 2 and 3. He stated that on 21-8-1994 himself and other constable produced the culprits before the J.F.C.M., Guntur and at that time the culprits did not tell the Judge regarding their alleged assault and keeping them in the police lock up illegally. He stated that R-1 did not behave in highhanded manner against P.Ws. 2 and 3 and he did not abuse them. In the cross-examination he admitted that he identified the Court clerk as he himself earlier worked in J.F.C.M. Court, Sattenapalli. He stated that after P.Ws. 2 and 3 assaulted him he asked the Court clerk whether a search warrant was issued to P.Ws. 2 and 3, and for that the Court clerk said that a search warrant was issued by the J.F.C.M., Vindukonda. He stated that even before he was assaulted by P.Ws. 2 and 3 they told him that they were advocates and they have come with a search warrant and he further adds that they did not show the search warrant to him in spite of his request. He stated that R-1 did not question the advocates as to why they assaulted R.W. 2. He denied the suggestion that he himself high-handedly behaved and did not allow the advocates to search the premises of the police station including the police lock up. He also denied the suggestion that the two culprits were in police lock up since several days prior to the advocates visiting the station with a search warrant. He also denied the suggestion that he obstructed the advocates in executing the search warrant issued by the Court.
18. R.W. 3 said to be a person who was working as a head constable in the police station in question and he was also the station house writer. He stated that at 6 p.m. on 20-8-1994 he was in one of the rooms of the police station and he heard some galata between R.W. 2 and another police constable Thirpathaiah on one side and some other two persons on the other side and at that time he saw three persons entering into the police station. On being questioned by the constable Thirupathaiah those persons told them that they have brought a search warrant from Court and at that time they requested P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and the Court clerk to wait till the arrival of R-1 who was absent. When they asked P.W. 2 to show the search warrant, P.W. 2 pushed R-2 by holding his neck saying that there was no necessity to show the search warrant and at that time, one of them went to the lock up and found that there was none there and thereafter all of them went outside the police station and remained there. When the galata was going on in the police station some outsiders like Budde Saheb had gathered there. He stated that P.W. 2 drafted a complaint and at about 6.30 p.m. S.I. of Police, Mastan came to the police station and at that time R.W. 2 handed over this report to the S.I. of police station and the said S.I. recorded his statement and also the statement of Budde Saheb and thereafter he went into the station writers room. But, in the cross-examination he stated that he knew Ramana Rao the Court clerk who accompanied the advocates. He admitted that advocates themselves told them that they have brought search warrant, and he did not ask Ramana Rao whether the advocates really brought the search warrant. He denied the suggestions that P.W. 2 or 3 had assaulted R.W. 2 and a false case is filed. He also denied a further suggestion that they did not allow P.W. 2 to execute the search warrant even though it was showed to them He also denied the suggestion that Sri T. Hari Babu and Srinu T were illegally detained in the lock up for the past several days prior to 20-8-1994 and he was giving false evidence to support R.Ws. 1 and 2.
19. The last witness for the defence was Shaik Bude, said to be a owner of the scrap shop, in front of the police station. He stated that at about 6 p.m. on 20-8-1994 while he was taking tea at a buddy shop near the police station he heard commotion in the police station and he saw some persons running towards the police station and he also went there and stood by the side of the gate of the police station. He stated that he found two constables and a police writer and three outsiders in the police station and two amongst the said three outsiders were shouting against the constable stating that two of the culprits were illegally detained in the police lockup and they were asking the constable to allow them to go to the police lockup and the constables were telling them that the Sub-Inspector of Police Was not present, and in turn the outsiders were telling the constables that they were having search warrant and when the police constable asked them to show the search warrant they did not show the same. He stated that one amongst the two outsiders caught hold of the neck of respondent No. 2 and took him aside and the other who was taller went near the police lockup and returned saying no one was detained in the lockup. He stated that at about 8.30 p.m. on the same day he was called inside the police station by the Sub-Inspector of Police and he was examined there. He stated that he was an illiterate person and even before he went to the police station there was commotion there and he did not know the reason for such commotion nor he knew the three persons went inside along with the other two. He stated that he usually returns to this house every day at about 8.30 p.m.. He denied the suggestion that he was giving false evidence at the instance of the police.
20. From the evidence of both sides as narrated above it is clear that there are two stages, in the incident alleged to have happened on 20-8-94. It is an admitted fact on both sides that PWs. 2, 3, 4 and the court clerk visited the police station at about 5 p.m. on that day. The first stage is, visiting the police station by PWs 2, 3 and 4 and the court clerk, at about 5 p.m. when respondent No. 2 was present and the second stage is after 6.30 p.m. when the respondent No. 1 arrived to the police station. So far as the first stage of the incident is concerned it is the case of the PWs 2, 3 and 4 that they showed the search warrant to RW 2 who was only present in the police station and he did not allow PWs 2 and 3 to go near the police lock-up in spite of showing the search on warrant issued by the court. On the other hand it is the case of respondent No. 2, who was admittedly present then, that though PWs 2 and 3 told them that they have got the search warrant with them but the said search warrant was not shown to him and further PWs 2 and 3 assaulted him. Now, we have to see which version is more acceptable and probable. At that time admittedly respondent No. 1 was not present and it is the case of the PWs 2, 3 and 4 that the other witnesses namely RWs 3 and 4 were not present and they were implanted witnesses later so as to file a false a case against PWs 2 and 3. At this stage it is relevant to note the evidence of respondent No. 1, as RW 1, regarding the presence of RWs 3 and 4. Respondent No. 1 clearly admitted in his evidence the effect that he filed counter-affidavit before the High Court and also before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. Vinukonda. But the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vinukonda did not receive his counter-affidavit. "In the counter-affidavit I did not state about the presence of Shaik Bude and other outsiders at the time of this offence. Even in my C.D. also I did not mention about presence of Shaik Bude and others when PWs 2 and 3 were said to have assaulted police constable D. Kondaiah." From this admission it is clear that in all probability RWs 2 and 3 were not present in the police station at the time of the incident and they are implanted witnesses only to find a corroboration to the evidence of RWs 1 and 2. If they were really present, at the time of the incident, their names could have been disclosed at the earliest point of time namely in the affidavit filed before this court, in criminal petition filed by the 1st respondent, and also in the affidavit before the Magistrate, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2406 of 1994, in which a search warrant was issued. Moreover according to the evidence of RW 2 and RW 3 they knew the court clerk Sri Ramana Rao. Both PWs 2 and 3 and Ramana Rao told RW 2 that they had come with search warrant from the court. The only narrow dispute is whether PWs 2, 3, and Ramana Rao refused to show the search warrant when asked by RWs 2 and 3. On this aspect there are two versions; one of the PWs and the other of the respondents. PWs 2, 3 and 4 stated clearly that they showed the search warrant while entering into the police station but they were prevented. On the other hand the evidence of the respondents is that PWs 2 and 3 did not show the search warrant. But, in our opinion absolutely there is no reason why these two advocates PWs 2 and 3 should refuse to show the search warrant when they were armed with such an order by the Court. Being appointed by the Court as Commissioner, PW 2 was an Officer of the Court and he was assisted by Ramana Rao the Official Clerk of the Court, and it is unthinkable that these two advocates who had search warrant with them refused to show the search warrant. In the cross-examination of PWs 2 and 3 no reason is suggested to these witnesses for not showing the search warrant. On the other hand, R W 1 in his evidence admits that "I do not know what prevented PW 2 from withholding the search warrant without showing the same either to me or to the police constable D. Kondaiah." At any rate, according to the evidence of RWs 2 and 3, PWs 2 and 3 were accompanied by a Court official Ramana Rao and it is the case of RWs 1, 2 and 3 that the Court, official Ramana Rao also told RWs 2, and 3 that there was a search warrant with them. Admittedly, the said Ramana Rao was known to RWs 2 and 3. Having regard to these circumstances the version of respondents that PW 2 did not show the warrant in his hand, issued by the Court cannot be accepted. It is also probable that RW 2 might be in an embarrassing position in allowing PWs 2, 3 and 4 in the absence of the S.I. of Police. Having regard to these circumstances an inference is possible that RW 2 had prevented PWs 2 to 4 from going near the lock-up room and contacted the Circle Inspector and sought his instructions over phone and according to the telephonic instructions he arrested PW 4. But, RW 2 could not have prevented the advocates from going to the lock-up cell because of the absence of the Circle Inspector, as they are bound to obey the court orders. It is the case of the respondents that in the absence of the Circle Inspector others could be allowed in the police station. In the cross-examination RW 1 admitted that "the centry constable (RW 2) had got powers to allow others to enter into the police station." He further admitted that RW 2 was the centry constable at that time. Therefore, regarding the first stage of the incident we have to hold that PW 2 was prevented and was obstructed from executing the search warrant of the Court by the R-2 And he was also not shown the police general diary by RW 2 on the pretext that the same was in the custody of the S.I. of Police.
21. According to PWs 2, 3 and 4, the second stage of the incident, occurred after the arrival of the R-1 at 6.30 p.m. to the police station in question. Even regarding the second stage of the incident there are two versions. According to PWs 2, 3 and 4, after seeing Sri. T. Hari Babu and Sri T. Srinu in the police lock-up, they were still in the police station to ascertain the things from the Circle Inspector who arrived at about 6.30 p.m. R-1 admitted in his evidence that he did arrive at about 6.30 p.m. But, according to him he had arrested the culprits Sri. T Hari Babu and Sri T. Srinu on the basis of the complaint of theft given by Sri Prasad Rao. From this it follows that according to both the versions the R-1 arrived to the police station at about 6 p.m. or 6.30 p.m. But according to PWs 2 to 4 the moment R-1 alighted from the car he cried aloud stating who were the fellows who brought the search warrant and PW 2 showed the search warrant to him and at the same time protested for using filthy and unparliamentary language against him. PWs 2 and 3 further stated that the R-1 after abusing PW 2 in vulgar language dragged him by holding left hand into the room and pulled him down into one of the chairs available there. R-1 also raised his hand to assault PW 2 and further directed R-2 to register a case against PWs 2 and 3. But, this version of PWs 2, 3 and 4 is denied by the respondents. According to the evidence of R-1 when he came to the police station R-2 complained him that PWs 2 and 3 assaulted him and R-2 has already lodged a complaint before the S.I. He also stated that both PWs 2 and 3 became angry against him and scolded him for not releasing the said two culprits and on the other hand he told PWs 2 and 3 that the culprits were arrested in connection with a case registered against them and PW 4 also was liable to be arrested. But, PWs 2 and 3 did not allow him to arrest PW 4. PWs 2 and 3 further said that they would foist a false case on the basis of self-inflicted injuries. He further stated that PW 2 did not show him the search warrant issued by the Court and thereafter PWs 2 to 4 went away. As we have already stated above, absolutely there is no reason why, the advocates who are the Officers of the Court as per law, would refuse to, show the warrant to R-1 when they are having such a warrant in their custody and when they are assisted by the Court Officer by name Ramana Rao. Even, according to Rws 2 and 3 Sri Ramana Rao was a person known to the police people as a Court Official. No doubt the said Ramana Rao would have been an important, witness to the incident but, unfortunately he died one year prior to the deposition of the witnesses. At any rate, we see no reason to disbelieve PWs 2 and 3. As we have already stated, above R-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he could not give any reason as to why PWs 2 and 3 could refuse to show the warrant to him. As it is no one can dare to enter into the police station to see the lock-up without a warrant of the Court. Having regard to these circumstances, we have to hold that the warrant of the Court was shown to R-2 and being embarrassed by the, situation the R-1 has threatened PWs 2 and 3 that 4 case, would be filed against them if they reported that, the two culprits were in the police lock-up, and consequently PW 2 was confined for some time in order to coarce him to report that the culprit were not found in the police lock-up at 5 p.m., even before the arrival of R-1. On the assessment of the entire evidence, we are not persuaded to disbelieve PWs 2 and 3. On the basis of the entire evidence on record we are constrained to hold that R-1 also prevented PW 2 from executing the warrant and from discharging his duties as an Officer of the Court, by threatening and confining him in the police station for some time in order to compel him not to report the presence of the culprits in the police station to the Court. In regard to the allegation of assault by R-1 on PW 2 is concerned PWs 2 and 3 have stated that R-1 had raised his hand to assault him and it is not their case that R-1 had actually assaulted them. What for the R-1 raised his hand could be anybody's guess. Having regard to the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that there was any assault made by R-1 on PW 2.
22. For the foregoing reasons, we record a finding in the affirmative with regard to point No. 2 excepting the incident of assault.
23. The next point for our consideration would be what should be the quantum of punishment that is reasonable to be imposed on the respondents for committing the contempt of Munsif Magistrate Court, Vinukonda, a Court subordinate to the High Court. The respondents, herein are both the Police Officers. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Waryam Singh v. Sadhu Singh" (1972 Cri LJ 635) (supra) that "5 ...........
Police Officers who are expected to act as guardians of law and order so as to protect the persons and properties and honour of ordinary citizens, cannot be permitted to take the law in their own hands ..........."
The Court Commissioner acts as an Officer of the Court armed with the search warrant issued by the Court. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the Police Officers to obey the order of the Court by receiving the warrant and by complying with the same. In these circumstances, we take the serious view of the impugned action on the part of the respondents. The success of democratic system mainly rests on the judicial institution. It is this institution which is entrusted with a duty of upholding the rule of law. Therefore, its orders have got to be respected and obeyed by all concerned. A conduct which hinders or obstructs due administration of justice in Courts is made punishable "for the reason that it tends to create distrust in the peoples mind and impair the confidence of people in courts which are of prime importance to the litigants in the protection of their rights and liberties" . State of M.P. v. Revashankar, . Having regard to this position of law, we are of the opinion that the respondents deserve a severe punishment.
24. However, keeping in view that the R-1 was awarded Uttamsevapadhakam by the Government of A.P. in the year 1986 and Mahonnatasevapathakam by the Government of A.P. in the year 1994 and also Indian Police Medal Award in the year 1988 by the President of India, we think it appropriate to take a lenient view of the matter regarding the quantum of punishment. R-2 is an Officer subordinate to R-1 and according to the evidence on record he obeyed the telephonic instructions of R-1, so we take a lenient view regarding R-2 also. In these circumstances, we consider it just and proper to impose a fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the 1st respondent and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days and a fine of Rs. 5000/- on the respondent No. 2 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five days. One week's time is granted to pay the fine amount.
25. Order accordingly.