Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.4 In the instant case, the contemners do no stand in the position of a "person accused of an offence" merely on account of issue of notice of contempt by this Court and the Commission which was acting on behalf of this Court had full authority to record the testimony of the contemners. There has, therefore, been no violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and the Commission's finding are not violated. [966F-G] 8.1 In determining, what punishment should be awarded to contemners found guilty, the degree and the extent of part played by each of the contemners has to be kept in mind. [998G] 8.2 In the instant case, Sharma, the Police Inspector was the main actor in the entire incident and who had planned the entire episode with a view to humiliate the CJM in the public eye is the main culprit and therefore, he deserves maximum punishment. The Sub Inspector took an active part in assaulting and tying the CJM at the behest of the Police Inspector. The Head Constable and Constable also took active part in handcuffing and tying the CJM with ropes, but as subordinate officials they acted under the orders of the superior officers. The Mamlatdar was a friend of the Police Inspector, he had no axe to grind against the CJM but he acted under the influence of the Police Inspec- tor. So far as the DSP is concerned, he actively abetted the commission of onslaught on the CJM. The contemners are held guilty of contempt and awarded punishment. [998H-999B] 8.3 The Police Inspector to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000. The Sub-Inspector to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months and pay a fine of Rs.2,000 and in default one month's simple imprisonment. Head Constable and Constable, each to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs.500 and in default 15 days simple imprisonment. The Mamlatdar to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and a fine of Rs.1,O00 and in default one month's simple imprisonment. The DSP is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one month and a fine of Rs.1,O00 and in default simple imprisonment for 15 days. So far as the other respondents against whom notices were issued no adequate material on record holds them guilty. The contempt notices are therefore discharged. [999C-E] 9.1 The Court expressed displeasure on the conduct of the DGP. As the head of the Police in the State, he was expected to intervene in the matter and to ensure effective action against the erring Police Officers. He was totally indifferent to the news that a CJM was arrested, handcuffed, roped, and assaulted. He took this news as a routine matter without taking any steps to ascertain the correct facts for effective action against the erring Police Officers. If the head of the State Police Administration exhibits such indif- ference to a sensitive matter which shook the entire judi- cial machinery in the State, nothing better could be expect- ed from his subordinate officers. The State Government should take action departmentally on the basis of the find- ings recorded by the Commission. [999F-1000A] 9.2 The discharge of the contempt notices does not absolve the officers of their misconduct. The State Govern- ment is directed to proceed with the disciplinary proceed- ings for taking appropriate action. [1000B] & ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 517 of 1989 etc. etc. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). Soli. J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Ashok H. Desai, Addl. Solicitor General, R.K. Garg, G. Ramaswamy, F.S. Nariman, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, G.A. Shah, T.U. Mehta, V.M. Tarkunde, B.K. Mehta S.S. Ray, A.K. Gupta, S.K. Dhingra, T.C. Sharma, Kishan Dutt, R.J. Trivedi, Manoj Swarup, M.N. Shroff, Sudarsh Menon, Sushil Kumar Jain, Bahl Singh Malik, Gopala Subramanium, Ms. Binu Tamta, Shahid Rizi. D.K. Singh, T. Ray, Pramod Swarup, Praveen Swarup, P.H. Parekh, Sunil Dogra, C.L. Sahu, G.L. Gupta, Brij Bhu- shan, N.S. Das Bahl, Mrs. H. Wahi, Harish Javeri and S. Ganesh. T.C. Sharma for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.N. SINGH, J. On 25th September, 1989, a horrendus incident took place in the town of Nadiad, District Kheda in the State of Gujarat, which exhibited the berserk behaviour of Police undermining the dignity and independence of judi- ciary. S.R. Sharma, Inspector of Police, with 25 years of service posted at the Police Station, Nadiad, arrested, assaulted and handcuffed N.L. Patel, Chief Judicial Magis- trate, Nadiad and tied him with a thick rope like an animal and made a public exhibition of it by sending him in the same condition to the Hospital for medical examination on an alleged charge of having consumed liquor in breach of the prohibition law enforced in the State of Gujarat. The In- spector S.R. Sharma got the Chief Judicial Magistrate photo- graphed in handcuffs with rope tied around his body along- with the constables which were published in the news papers all over the country. This led to tremors in the Bench and the Bar throughout the whole country.

On 13.2.1990 notices from contempt were issued to. K. Dadabhoy, Ex. D.G.P., Gujarat, Dr. Bhavsar, Senior Medical Officer of Govt. Hospital Nadiad and M.B. Savant, Mamlatdar, Nadiad. The Court during the proceedings also issued notices to R. Bala Krishnan, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Gujarat and S.S. Subhalkar, District Judge, Nadiad to show cause why action be not taken against them in view of the Report of Justice Sahai.

N.L. Patel was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nadiad in October, 1988. He soon found that the local Police was not cooperating with the courts in effecting service of summons, warrants an notices on accused persons, as a result of which the trials of cases were delayed. He made complaint against the local Police to the District Superintendent of Police and forwarded a copy of the same to the Director General of Police but nothing concrete happened. On account of these complaints S.R. Sharma, Police Inspector Nadiad was annoyed with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he withdrew constables posted in the CJM Court. In April, 1989 Patel filed two complaints with the Police against Sharma and other Police Officials, Nadiad for delaying the process of the court. On 25 July, 1989 Patel directed the Police to register a criminal case against 14 persons who had caused obstruction in judicial proceedings but subsequently since they tendered unqualified apology, the CJM directed the Police Inspector to drop the cases against-those persons. Sharma reacted strongly to Patel's direction and he made complaint against the CJM to the Registrar of the High Court through District Superintendent of Police. These facts show that there was hostility between the Police of Nadiad and the CJM. On 25.9. 1989, S.R. Sharma met Patel, CJM in his Chambers to discuss the case of one Jitu Sport where the Police had failed to submit charge-sheet within 90 days. During discussion Sharma invited the CJM to visit the Police Station to see the papers and further his visit would mollify the sentiments of the Police Officials. It is al- leged that at 8.35 p.m. Sharma sent a Police Jeep at Patel's residence, and on that vehicle Patel went to the Police Station. What actual happened at the Police Station is a matter of serious dispute between the parties. According to the CJM, he ar- rived in the Chamber of Sharma in the Police Station, he was forced to consume liquor and on his refusal he was assault- ed, handcuffed and tied with rope by Sharma, Police Inspec- tor, Sadia Sub-Inspector, Valjibhai Kalajibhai, Head Consta- ble and Pratap Singh, Constable. It is further alleged that Patal was sent to Hospital for Medical examination under handcuffs where he was made to sit on a bench in the varanda exposing him to the public gaze. Sharma, Police Inspector and other Police Officers have disputed these allegations. According to Sharma, Patel entered his chamber at the Police Station at 8.45 p.m. on 25.9. 1989 in a drunken state, shouting and abusing him, he caught hold of Sharma and slapped him, since he was violent he was arrested, hand- cuffed and sent to Hospital for medical examination. Patel himself wanted to be photographed while he was handcuffed and tied with ropes, a photographer was arranged to take his photograph which was published in the newspapers. Since, there was serious dispute between the parties with regard to the entire incident, the Court appointed Justice R.M. Sahai senior puisne Judge of the Allahabad High Court (as he then was) to inquire into the incident and to submit report to the Court. Justice Sahai was appointed to hold the inquiry on behalf of this Court and not under the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act. Justice Sahai visited Nadiad and held sittings there. The learned Commis- sioner/Judge invited affidavits/statements, and examined witnesses including S.R. Sharma the Police Inspector, D.K. Dhagal, D.S.P. and other Police Officers, lawyers, N.L. Patel, CJM, and Doctors and other witnesses. Justice Sahai afforded full opportunity to all the concerned persons including the State Government, Police Officers and lawyers to lead evidence and to cross examine witnesses. He submit- ted a detailed Report dated 28.11.1989 to this Court on 1.12.1989. On receipt of the Report this Court directed copies to be delivered to concerned parties and permitted the parties and the contemners to file their objections, if any, before this Court. The objections were filed by the Police Officers and the contemners disputing the findings recorded by the Commissioner, On 12.12.1989, when the matter came up for final dispos- al the Court issued notices to the Attorney-General and Advocate-General of the State of Gujarat. On 10.1.1990 the Court directed the State of Gujarat to file affidavit stat- ing as to what action it had taken or pro-

(7) On the direction of Sharma, Police Inspector, Patel was handcuffed at the Police Station and he was further tied up with a thick rope by the Police Inspector, Sharma, Sadia, Sub-Inspector, Valjibhai Kalabhai, Head Constable and Pratap Singh, Constable. This was deliberately done in defiance of Police Regulations and Circulars issued by the Gujarat Government and the law declared by this Court in Prern Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration., [1980] 3 SCC 526. Patel had not committed any offence nor he was violent and yet he was handcuffed and tied up with rope without there being any justification for the same. There were seven police personnel present at the Police Station and most of them were fully armed while Patel was empty handed, there was absolutely no chance of Patel escaping from the custody or making any attempt to commit suicide or attacking the Police Officers and yet he was handcuffed and tied up with a thick rope like an animal with a view to humiliate and teach him a lesson. For this wanton act there was absolutely no justification and pleas raised by Sharma that Patel was violent or that he would have escaped from the custody are figment of imagination made for the purpose of the case.

But the burden would be on the Police to establish necessity for effecting physical arrest and handcuffing the Judicial Officer and if it be established that the physical arrest and handcuffing of the Judicial Officer was unjustified, the Police Officers causing or responsible for such arrest and handcuffing would be guilty of misconduct and would also be personally liable for compensation and/or damages as may be summarily determined by the High Court.