Patna High Court
The State vs Vishwanath Prasad Varma And Anr. on 27 October, 1950
Equivalent citations: AIR1951PAT451
JUDGMENT Rai, J.
1. In this case a rule had been issued by this Ct against Shri Vishwanath Prasad Varma, Ct Sub-Inspector of Police, Bettiah, & Shri Balaram Sinha, Sub-divisional Officer, Bettiah, to show cause why they should not be convicted for contempt of Ct for disobeying, evading or interfering with the course of justice.
2 . A case under Sections 342, 392 & 323, I. P. C. was pending against one Rasdhari Singh, a con stable of the local Police Station, in the Ct of Shri Viswanath Mishra, Munsif-Mag of Bettiah.
The accused constable was continuing on bail granted by the learned Munsif-Mag. On 1-8- 1950, an appln was moved before the trial Ct on behalf of the complainant mentioning that the accused constable was holding out threats to the prosecution witnesses & the lawyers. This appln was supported by five affidavits sworn by the prosecution witnesses & two affidavits sworn by the lawyers whom threats had been held out by the said Rasdhari Singh. The learned Munsif-Mag, after considering the matter, can celled the bail of the accused. As usual a warrant for intermediate custody was issued on 1-8-1950, which has been exhibited in this Ct a Exh. 3. This warrant for intermediate cus tody was issued to the officer in charge of the Bettiah sub ]atl. On 2-8-1950, an appln was moved by the complainant before the trial Ct that the said Rasdhari Singh, who had been remanded to the jail custody had not been sent to Jail but was roaming about in the Ct. The learned Munsif-Mag at once called for a report from the Ct Sub-Inspector to whom he had handed over the accused with the custody war rant. He also called for a report from the jailor. The Ct Sub-Inspector reported that he had handed over the under-trial prisoner to Bhrl Vishwanath Prasad Varma & the latter in his report said that he had kept the under-
trial prisoner in Ct-lock-up under the orders of the Sub-divisional Officer.
3 . The learned Munsif-Mag, after consider ing the explanation of the Ct sub-Inspector, Bhrl Vishwanath Prasad Varma, took his state ment in open Ct on 3-8-1950 at about 12 hours.
He was informed that even up to that date the under-trial constable Rasdhari had not yet been sent to Motihari Jail. The learned Munsif Mag was of opinion that the Ct Sub-Inspector Shri Vishwanath Prasad Varma, had intentionally flouted the orders of the Ct. He, however, reported the case to the Dist & Ses J. of Champaran for necessary action who has forwarded the matter to this Ct for appropriate action. This Ct issued the rule as mentioned above. The Ct Sub-Inspector as well as the Sub-divisional Officer have filed show-cause petns before this Ct. They both pleaded not guilty.
4 . I first propose to deal with the show cause petn of Shri Vishwanath Prasad Varma, the Ct Sub-Inspector of Bettiah. His state ment was taken on 3-8-1950, before the learned Munsif-Mag. We have also examined him in this Ct. Prom his statement I am definitely of opinion that he was trying his best that even ing to favour the under-trial prisoner, Rashdari Singh, in utter disregard of the order of the learned Munsif-Mag. From his evidence, as taken down in this Ct it is quite clear that he received the warrant of custody at 5 or 5.30. p.m. He says that he was shown an appln to be moved on behalf of the under-trial prisoner that he should not be removed to the Bettiah" Sub jail. He gave an excuse before us that it, was on account of that- appln that he delayed, sending the prisoner to Bettiah Sub jail, but I do not think that this was the real cause. Mr. A. A. Khan, Second Officer, who was in charge of the work of the Sub-divisional Officer at Bettiah at that time was, according to him, not approached till 6 or 6.30 p.m. Mr. Varma'was the senior Ct Sub-Inspector in charge of the Bettiah Ct. He was so much partial to Rasdhari Singh that he also went to Shri Balaram Sinha, the Sub-divisional Officer, to get an order for detention of the under-trial prisoner in the-Ct-lock-up. This act of his is a sufficient demonstration of his anxiety to so manoeuvre the whole thing that in spite of the order of the Munsif-Mag the under-trial prisoner may not be sent to Bettiah Sub jail. He anyhow persuaded Shri Balaram Singh to pass the order, Ex. 2. To me it appears that from the very inception he was trying to undo the order passed by the learned Munsif-Mag for the removal of Rasdhari Singh to jail custody. In my judgment his action amounts to a clear disregard of the Ct's order. He has, therefore, committed the offence of contempt of Ct. Though in this Ct he has tendered an unqualified apology, but in the circumstances of the present case I am of opinion that this apology is not a sufficient punishment so far as he is concerned. I, therefore, convict him under Section 2, Contempt of Cts Act XII 12 . of 1926 & sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- or in default to rigorous imprisonment for one week.
5 . As regards the explanation submitted by Shri Balaram Sinha, the Sub-divisional Officer of Bettiah, I may say that the order passed by him does not befit an officer of his position.
We have examined him in this Ct & from his evidence it has been amply demonstrated that he passed the order merely for the asking of the Ct Sub-Inspector & the lawyer for the accused. He did not even take the trouble to verify the statements contained in the petn Ex.
1. The reason given by Rashdari Singh in the petn for not being sent to Bettiah Sub jail was that he had recently arrested about half a dozen dacoits who had been lodged in that jail. He pleaded in that petn that if he would be sent there his life would be endangered. The petn had been carefully kept vague regarding the dacoits & the place of dacoity . Shri Balaram Singh has admitted in his evidence that he did not know from before if the constable had arrested any dacoit who was lodged in the Bettiah Sub jail at that time. Neither the jailor nor the Superintendent of the Sub-jail was consulted in this matter. The Sub-divisional Officer claimed to have passed the order under Rr. 9 & 164 A of the Rules for the Superintendence & Management of the jails & Subsidiary jails in Bihar. These rules run as follows:
"9. Ordinarily the Sub-divisional Officer shall hold control of the local subsidiary jail & be the superintendent thereof. But at places where a civil assistant Surgeon is employed, he shall be the superintendent of the subsidiary jail, & the Sub-divisional officer shall exercise in regard to the subsidiary jail the same functions as are exercised by the Dist Mag in regard to a district jail. The local Govt may, however, appoint any other officer to be the superintendent of a subsidiary jail in lieu of either the Sub-divisional Officer or the civil assistant surgeon."
"164 A -- When a large number of under-trial prisoners is arrested the Sub-divisional Officer may, in order to avoid serious overcrowding in the sub jail, commit, at his discretion, any of such prisoners to custody in the central or Dist jail to which the sub jail is affiliated, instead of in the sub jail. In such a case when, owing to the lack of sufficient escort or for any other reason, it is impossible to commit the prisoners direct to the central or Dist jail & they are therefore committed to custody in the sub jail, the Sub-divisional Officer may, when the necessary arrangements have been made, recommit the prisoners by warrant to custody in the central or Dist jail.
Whenever arrangements are made by the police to arrest a large number of prisoners at the same time, the officer making the arrangements should, if possible, inform the Sub-divisional Officer in advance & should at the same time make arrangements to supply a police guard to escort the prisoners to the central or Dist jail, or to assist in guarding the sub jail, if it should be necessary to commit the prisoners to the sub jail."
6 . To me it appears that there was no justification for passing the order, Ex. 2, which runs as follows:
"C. S. I. will take charge of the accused. He accused . may be sent to Motihari Jail or may be kept in the Ct-lock-up."
He admitted in his evidence that the Ct Sub-Inspector could by this order keep Rashdhari Singh in the Ct-lock-up & not send him to Motihari Jail at all if he liked. In my opinion, if the matter would not have been brought to the notice of the learned Munsif-Mag subsequently, the accused might not have been sent to Motihari Jail. To me it appears that the Sub-divisional Officer was simply led away by the Ct Sub-Inspector who was out that evening to see that anyhow the constable may not be taken to jail against the specific orders of the Munsif Mag. Though the learned Sub-divisional Officer in his evidence in this Ct said that he did not know as to what orders had been passed by the Munsif-Mag, but as a responsible officer he ought to have known it & he ought not to have acted in the way that he has acted in this case. In his case, however, I am prepared to' accept the unqualified apology tendered by him.
Jamuar, J.
7. I agree.