Kerala High Court
Sri.P.Damodaran vs Sri.Cherkalam Abdulla on 27 March, 2008
Author: Koshy
Bench: J.B.Koshy, A.K.Basheer, K.P.Balachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CCC.No. 1488 of 2001(S)
1. SRI.P.DAMODARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SRI.CHERKALAM ABDULLA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SASIKUMAR
For Respondent :ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :27/03/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY, A.K.BASHEER & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
------------------------------------
C.C.C.No.1488 of 2001
-------------------------------------
Dated 27th March, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
This contempt of court case was initiated at the instance of one P.Damodaran, Secretary of the Kerala State Vyapari Vyavasayi Samithi, Kasaragod. Even though there were four respondents, charges were framed only against the first respondent who was the then Minister for Local Self Government, Government of Kerala for violating the directions of a Full Bench of this Court in People Council for Social Justice v. State of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 301 (FB)). In the above judgment the following directions were issued:
"(i) The organisers of the procession of demonstration shall give advance notice to the higher Police Officer of the District or such other officer authorised by the Government at least six days before the procession or demonstration is intended to be held. The notice must contain a brief note giving the reasons and purpose of the demonstration or procession and the approximate number of participants.
(ii) The participants of procession/demonstration shall not be allowed to occupy the entire breadth of the road so as to obstruct the passing and repassing of pedestrians or vehicles through the road. The processionists shall not be allowed to carry lengthy banners so as to occupy the entire breadth of the road. The police should restrict the length of the banners if it is likely that the CCC.1488/01 2 same would cause obstruction to the pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
(iii) In all road junctions pedestrians shall be allowed to cut across the procession/demonstration and the police shall help the pedestrians to cross the road.
Such crossing shall be once in every 10 minutes in every road junction and the police shall help and regulate the same by appropriate directions.
(iv) If any participant in the demonstration / procession engages in disorderly conduct he shall be dealt with according to law.
(v) Participants of processions/demonstrations shall not be allowed to carry any weapons or instruments that could be used as dangerous weapons.
(vi) There shall be sufficient contingent of police and the police shall take all possible steps to regulate public assemblies and processions as envisaged under S.19 of the Police Act and shall see that it shall be peaceful and cause least inconvenience to the public.
(vii) Any wrongful act or omission upon or near public street by any of participants in the demonstration/procession whereby the public are prevented from freely, safely and conveniently passing along such public road shall be dealt with according to law.
(viii) Road picketing and dharnas on public road, being clear violations of law, shall strictly be prohibited and the police shall see that the persons who cause such obstruction to the pedestrians and vehicular traffic be removed from the road.
CCC.1488/01 3
(ix) The Government shall issue appropriate circulars to the police authorities impressing upon them the need to enforce the provisions contained in the Police Act." It is the allegation of the petitioner that on 1.6.2001 first respondent who was sworn in as the Minister for Local Self Government arrived at Cheruvathoor in a vehicle with a convoy of more than 500 vehicles. Procession came via railway gate at Cheruvathoor. From there Minister with his supporters walked towards the Cheruvathoor town. The convoy of vehicles also followed behind the procession which created a complete traffic block. It is alleged that no permission was obtained for conducting such a procession and the processionists carried weapons, sticks etc. There was stone pelting also and the entire Cheruvathoor town became stand still. The incident occurred after 4 p.m. By 6.30 p.m. police took the Minister and escorted to Kanhangad Guest House. In support of the above case, petitioner mainly relied on Annexure II photograph as well as Annexure IV communication by the fourth respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police to the Local Station House Officer. After preliminary hearing, the court framed the following charges:
"We do hereby charge you, Sri.Cherkalam Abdulla, M.L.A, Cherkalam House, Chengala P.O., Kasaragod as follows:CCC.1488/01 4
That you, after having been sworn in as a Minister (Minister of Local Self Government, Government of Kerala) partaking in a procession at Cheruvathoor in Kasaragod District (as at present) in connection with a reception arranged by the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), of which you are a prominent leader, have, between 4.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on 1.6.2001, committed contempt of this Court, violating the mandatory directions issued by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Peoples' Council for Social Justice v. State of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 301) by your following acts and omissions:
i. That no advance notice was given to the fourth respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanhangad or to any other higher police officer of the District before the procession/demonstration was held on 1.6.2001 informing of the reasons and purpose of the procession/demonstration and the approximate number of participants therein;
ii. That, despite lawful direction issued by the 4th respondent/the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanhangad communicated to you through the C.I. of Police, Kanhangad, who was escorting you when your motorcade reached near the Cheruvathoor Railway Gate that the convey of vehicles shall not proceed beyond the Cheruvathoor Railway Gate, apprehending serious law and order problem, considering the tense situation that was then prevailing in Cheruvathoor Town, on account of a clash between the workers of IUML and CPM, you disobeyed the said direction and permitted the motorcade to proceed beyond Cheruvathoor Railway Gate towards Cheruvathoor Town;
iii. That after the motorcade passing the Railway Gate you got down from the vehicle and joined with your party men and proceeded towards Cheruvathoor Town by walking in procession along with your party workers, occupying the entire CCC.1488/01 5 breadth of the road, obstructing the passing and re- passing of pedestrians and vehicles through the road;
iv. That the participants in the procession/ demonstration wielded long lathies which are dangerous weapons just in front of your nose exhibiting show of force and pelting stones keeping the police away which action of your followers and workers were not attempted to be dissuaded by you;
v. That the above conduct and acts invited similar response from workers of other political parties, especially the CPM, with whom the workers of the IUML did have a clash in and around Cheruvathoor Town just before your procession/ demonstration reached there, as a result of which, the police had to open fire to disburse the unruly mob and the fourth respondent/Deputy Superintendent of Police had to rescue you, taking you in police jeep to the Guest House at Kanhangad;
vi. That all your acts aforesaid and the acts of your party followers abetted by you as aforesaid are in defiance of the orders of this Court and in contempt of the authority of this Court and you have thereby committed an offence of Civil Contempt punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; and vii. We direct that you be tried before this Court on the aforesaid charges of committing contempt of this Court."
In support of the charges, three witnesses were examined including the petitioner. Annexures II, IV, the evidence and the explanations given by the first respondent would clearly show that the first respondent was elected as a member of the Indian Union Muslim CCC.1488/01 6 League party in the Legislative Assembly election and he became a minister and a reception was arranged at Uppala. They have decided to go to Uppala via Olavara and Cheruvathoor, even though there is another way to go to Uppala. From Olavara a large number of vehicles followed the Minister's vehicle. Police escort was also there. Annexure IV would show that even before the Minister was passing through Cheruvathoor, there were disturbances in Cheruvathoor town. Supporters of IUML and supporters of Marxist Party had a clash and Annexure IV would show that there were about 500 people assembled at Cheruvathoor even before arrival of the vehicle of Minister at the railway gate of Cheruvathoor. Annexure IV also shows that it was not advisable for the procession to pass through Cheruvathoor town as it would create security problems. However, Annexure II photograph which was admitted by the first respondent in his examination shows that at Cheruvathoor railway gate he got down from the car and proceeded by walking along with his supporters towards Cheruvathoor town. About 500 vehicles were also following him. In a small place like Cheruvathoor it would make traffic block and there is no dispute for the same. According to the first respondent, he got down from the car to get into the police jeep for going to the Kanhangad Guest House. Annexure IV as well as evidence would show that he entered into the police jeep after 6 p.m. CCC.1488/01 7 Therefore, it can be very well found that from Cheruvathoor railway gate he was walking towards town with his followers and he got down from the car not for getting into the police jeep. Even though it is stated that there was no procession, in the affidavit dated 21.2.2006 at paragraphs 3 to 6 it is averred by the respondents as follows:
"3. Respondents 1 and 2 herein have been made unnecessary parties in the above contempt of court case. These respondents submit that these respondents have not violated the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in O.P.3040 of 1998 produced as Annexure A1 in the above matter and would also most humbly submit that they have the utmost respect for this Hon'ble Court and would not in any way interfere with the administration of justice or do any act which tends to violate the judgment of this Hon'ble Court. The first respondent is a M.L.A. And a former Minister. He has been in politics for the past several years and is aware of the duties and responsibilities as a public servant. More over there was no necessity for these respondents to violate the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment.
4. After the first respondent was sworn in as Minister, there was a reception according to him by the members belonging to his political party. The first respondent was not the person who arranged the reception. As far as these respondents understand, the procession was arranged in such a manner so as not to cause any breach of peace and it was done without causing any inconvenience to any other person.
5. These respondents would humbly submit that Annexure A4(a) which is the communication issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CCC.1488/01 8 Kanhangad to the Station House Officer, Chandera police station would show that there were heavy pelting of stones on the procession and on the police officials present there. He further states that for self protection he had to fire two rounds using service revolver. It is further stated that due to all these he was forced to take the first respondent in his jeep removing all the obstructions on the way. These facts itself would show that certain miscreants wanted to cause a breach of peace by pelting stones on the procession and provoked them and to cause disruption to the procession. It is also understood that the police have registered case against all the persons who were behind this unfortunate incident.
6. These respondents most humbly submit that they have not done anything either to instigate the persons in the procession or those persons who pelted stones on the procession to do any act which is in violation of any law."
The above shows that they moved as a procession.
2. From the evidence it is clear that the Minister was going to Uppala via Cheruvathoor. Main reception was arranged at Uppala. On the way people were giving him receptions. At Olavara a reception was arranged and vehicles were following the Minister's vehicle from there. Stiff opposition was raised by the Marxist Party at Cheruvathoor town. There was pelting of stones against him and the procession. It has also come out in evidence that some of the CCC.1488/01 9 shops were damaged. Annexure II itself shows that shields were carried by the police officers so that the Minister was not hurt by stone pelting.
3. The whole question to be considered is whether first respondent has committed a wilful disobedience of the directions of this court. Evidence adduced by both sides show that Minister was going for Uppala where a reception was arranged to the Minister via Olavara and Cheruvathoor and there was a stiff opposition by the Marxist Party workers at Cheruvathoor. Despite that, he came and got down from the car at the railway gate of Cheruvathoor and walked. People followed him, but, the procession was not arranged by him. Senior police officers were with him. Therefore, it cannot be stated that he was guilty in not getting permission from the police authorities for conducting the procession. There is no material to show that he arranged a procession at Cheruvathoor Town. Further, petitioner was also not able to adduce any evidence to show that Minister arranged procession or there was absence of permission from police authorities. It is true that first respondent also did not adduce any evidence for having received the permission. Annexure V F.I.R. was registered against some of the followers after five days of the incident. The reason stated by the police officer for the delay in CCC.1488/01 10 registering the crime was that he wanted a written confirmation that no permission was obtained from the police to charge sheet against some of the processionists. It also shows that Minister was not charged for arranging the procession. It is contended by counsel for the first respondent that when an M.L.A. elected from the area, that too from minority community, was sworn in as Minister, people will be excited with joy and when the Minister came local people gathered in vehicles and the Minister did not wilfully violate the directions of the court. The reception arranged at Olavara was spontaneous and he was on his way to Uppala where formal reception was arranged. People from Olavara followed him in vehicles. Even though he was the District Secretary of the Indian Union Muslim League, after electing and becoming a Minister, he was not in charge of the party. He also gave evidence that charge was handed over to another person. Only local people were arranging the reception and it cannot be stated that Minister has arranged the procession. Totality of evidence would show that he cannot be found guilty for wilful contempt of the orders of the court though being a Minister he should have acted more carefully and seen that court directions are not violated when procession is arranged. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that he cannot be convicted and sentenced for wilfully violating the judgment of this court. At the same time, leaders CCC.1488/01 11 like him should be more careful to see that their followers also are keeping law and order while arranging reception etc. and they should insist that law and directions of this court should not be violated. We appreciate Adv.Sri.Reghuraj designated by this court as well as the Senior Advocate Sri.Ratna Singh for the help and assistance rendered by them to the court in this proceedings.
The contempt case is closed accordingly.
J.B.KOSHY JUDGE A.K.BASHEER JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE tks CCC.1488/01 12 J.B.KOSHY, A.K.BASHEER & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
------------------------------
I.A.No.135 of 2008 in C.C.C.No.1488 of 2001
------------------------------
Dated 11th March, 2008 O R D E R Koshy,J.
The case is now posted on 13.3.2008 for evidence. It is submitted that no further evidence is required. Hence, summons need not be sent as ordered on 7.3.2008. Post the case at 1.45 p.m. on 27.3.2008 for arguments. Posting of the case on 13.3.2008 for evidence is cancelled.
J.B.KOSHY JUDGE A.K.BASHEER JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE CCC.1488/01 13 tks CCC.1488/01 14 J.B.KOSHY, A.K.BASHEER & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
------------------------------
C.C.C.No.1488 OF 2001
------------------------------
Dated 23rd January, 2008 O R D E R Koshy,J.
CW4 was examined. Proof affidavit of the first respondent was filed. For his cross examination and arguments post on 7.3.2008. CD file also produced.
J.B.KOSHY JUDGE A.K.BASHEER JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE tks CCC.1488/01 15 J.B.KOSHY, A.K.BASHEER & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------ C.C.C.No.1488 of 2001
------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT Dated 27th March, 2008 CCC.1488/01 16 J.B.KOSHY, A.K.BASHEER & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
------------------------------
C.C.C.No.1488 OF 2001
------------------------------
Dated 24th October,2007 O R D E R Koshy,J.
In pursuance of the summons issued, the Station House Officer of Chandera Police Station was present. It is submitted that he was not in charge of the police station at the time of the incident, but, one Assainar was in charge of the Chandera police station. It is also submitted that the records are not available in the police station as those records were transferred to Crime Branch. The witness is discharged.
Post for further evidence on 21.11.2007.
CCC.1488/01 17
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
A.K.BASHEER
JUDGE
K.P.BALACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp
CCC.1488/01 18
J.B.KOSHY, A.K.BASHEER & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
------------------------------
C.C.C.No.1488 OF 2001
------------------------------
Dated 15th November, 2006 ORDER Koshy,J.
Draft charges attached to the petition and allegations were denied by the first respondent. After considering the pleadings of the first respondent, we are of the opinion that there is prima facie case and charge sheet has to be issued. As agreed in the open court, a copy of the charge sheet along with Malayalam translation will be given by the court to the advocate for the first respondent within two weeks from today. Thereafter, a written explanation of the accused can be submitted within A.K.BASHEER JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE tks J.B.KOSHY, A.K.BASHEER & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, CCC.1488/01 19 JJ.
------------------------------
C.C.C.No.1488 OF 2001
------------------------------
Dated 12th September,2007 O R D E R Koshy,J.
Sri.Suresh Chandran was examined as CW2. Proof affidavit received and accepted as Chief examination of CW2. Examined CW2 in Cross examination and Re-examination.
Adjourned to 12.9.2007 for further evidence.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
A.K.BASHEER
JUDGE
CCC.1488/01 20
K.P.BALACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp
CCC.1488/01 21
J.B.KOSHY, A.K.BASHEER & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJJ.
------------------------------
C.C.C.No.1488 OF 2001
------------------------------
Dated 12th December, 2007 O R D E R Koshy,J.
Additional witness, Circle Inspector of Police, Casaba Police Station, Kozhikode, who had registered the F.I.R. was present. But he stated that summons was received only yesterday and records are in the Crime Branch. He shall get the records from the Crime Branch and bring it in the next posting date, 23.1.2008 at 2 p.m. The Government Pleader should see that Crime Branch will give the records so that his examination can be finished at the next posting date. The respondents also can start evidence on that day. Examination in chief in the form of affidavit should be filed within one week prior to the next posting date so that witness can be cross examined on that date. Copy of the proof affidavit should be given to the designated Advocate so that cross examination also can be completed on that date.
CCC.1488/01 22
Post on 23.1.2008.
J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE
prp
CCC.1488/01 23