Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. These proceedings arise out of an unfortunate incident which took place in and around the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram on 19-1-2002.

2. Briefly stated, notice was issued by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas to the Officer-in-Charge of Bikramganj Police Station, S.I. Arun Paswan, to show-cause in terms of Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code for non-production of the case diary despite adjournments in connection with hearing of Bail Petition No. 1671 /2001 arising out of Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 200/2001 under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 19-1-2002, SI Arun Paswan appeared before the Sessions Judge and filed show-cause along with papers. The Sessions Judge found that the case diary had been written only up to 28-11-2001. After show-cause notice was issued three paragraphs were written but there was no investigation after 28-11-2001, even though it was a 'Special Report' case. The learned Judge found that from the Station Diary it appeared that the Officer was present at the police station upto 9-1-2001 but did not care to send the case diary. The learned Judge concluded that his conduct amounted to disobedience of the Court's order and accordingly directed him to file further show-cause why he should not be remanded to custody. He was meanwhile directed to remain present till rising of the Court at 4.30 p.m. When the learned Judge sat after the luncheon recess and was in the midst of hearing Cr. Revision No. 334/2001, a group of persons in plain clothes as well as in police uniform were seen in front of the Court room. They were shouting abusive slogans against the Judge. The Officer-in-Charge of Sasaram (Town) Police Station and the Personal Security Guard of the District Judge took position on the Varanda outside the Court rooms to prevent them from entering the Court room, The advocates were excited and the learned Judge felt that untoward incident might take place. He requested them to resume their seats or to return to their Association. He learnt that the aforesaid group was led by Sudarsan Prasad Mandal, Dy. S.P. Sasaram, S.I. Sakaldeo Yadav and S.I. Syed Ahmad Khan. The learned Judge further came to learnt, later, that a meeting had been held in the Chambers of the Dy. S.P. where S.P. Rohtas was also present and he had instigated the police officials to create pandemonium and assault him as well as other Judicial Officers and employees of the Civil Courts. The Registrar, Rohtas Civil Courts telephonically informed the police office but no response came.

16. I shall first take up the case of the Superintendent of Police, Raghubansh Prasad Yadav. Appearing for him Sri Tara Kant Jha submitted that the allegation that on his instigation the Police Officer proceeded towards the Court of District & Sessions Judge and indulged in slogan shouting etc. is without any basis. Sri Jha stated that on 19-1-2002 three meetings were fixed at Dehri, Bikramganj and Sasaram in connection with Panchayat election to be held on the following day. According to the schedule the meetings were fixed respectively at 10 a.m., 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. The meeting at Dehri however was actually held at 11 a.m. The Additional Collector, Rohtas Sri Hasib Akhtar participated in the meeting on behalf of the District Magistrate. The meeting continued up to 1 p.m. whereafter, they left for Bikramganj. The meeting at Bikramganj commenced at 2.15 p.m. In course of the meeting he was informed about the detention of the Officer Incharge Bikramganj PS i.e. SI Arun Paswan in the Court of District & Sessions Judge. He immediately contacted the Dy. S.P. Sasaram and the Police Prosecutor, Sasaram over telephone and they confirmed the news. They informed him that the order had been passed on account of non-supply of the Case Diary of some case. He advised them to move the Court for bail. At 3 p.m. he was informed telephonically by the Sergeant Major, Dehri that the Police Officers were intending to boycott the election duty on 20-1-2002. He asked the sergeant Major to inform the policemen that the Public prosecutor and the Dy. S.P. had been advised to move the District & Sessions Judge for bail. He thereafter, proceeded to Sasaram to oversee the situation himself. He went to the office of Sub-Divisional Officer where meeting was already fixed reaching there at 4.30 p.m. It was only then that he came to learnt about the details of the incident from the SDO. He informed him about the scuffle between the police personnel and the lawyers and about the slogan shouting by the President and Secretary of the Rohtas District Police Association i.e. SI Sakaldeo Yadav and Syed Akhtar against the District & Sessions Judge. He requested the learned Judge over telephone for an appointment so that he may know the entire facts and take action in the matter. The learned Judge however refused to meet him. He thereafter, contacted the Public Prosecutor and the Government Pleader and conveyed the request through them to the learned District & Sessions Judge for appointment. The Public Prosecutor and the Government Pleader went along with the Circle Officer, Sasaram to request the learned Judge for appointment. But appointment was refused. He informed the Additional DGP, Patna Zone and DIG, Sahabad Range. He thereafter, went to the chambers of the Dy. S.P. where Members of Rohtas Chamber of Commerce were waiting to discuss the law and order situation arising out of killing of one Ravi Prakash Saraogi, a prominent businessman of Sasaram on 16-1-2002. He hurriedly finished the discussion. After the meeting was over the Officer Bearers of the Rohtas Police Association namely SI Sakaldeo Yadav and SI Syed Ahmad Khan came there and informed about the incident. He reprimanded them and also told them that he will be taking appropriate steps against the erring police officers after preliminary enquiry. He asked the Dy. S.P. Sasaram who was present there to submit report immediately so that action against the erring police officers could be taken.

17. It may be recalled that the charge against the S.P. vide letter of the District & Sessions Judge dated 19-1-2002 is that on his instigation the police officers came and indulged in slogan shouting etc. However, if it is a fact that the S.P. reached Sasaram at or about 4.30 p.m. it would be difficult to hold him responsible for the incident. As per the report of the District & Sessions Judge the incident took place at about 2.45 p.m. At that point of time he was in the midst of meeting at Bikramganj 45 Km. away from Sasaram. The scheduled meetings at Bikramganj and other places were fixed from before, From Annexure A/1 of his show-cause it appears that the notice relating to the meetings had been circulated under the signatures of the District Magistrate, Rohtas and Superintendent of Police, Rohtas on 18-1-2002 itself vide Memo No. 305/GO. According to the Officer, the District Magistrate did not attend the meeting and he was represented by the Additional Collector. The statement of the Additional Collector Sri Hasib Akhtar was recorded by the ADGP in course of his enquiry on 23/24-1-2002 who stated that on 19-1-2002 he and the SP remained together throughout the day. He also informed the ADGP that he along with the SP had reached Bikramganj Sub-Divisional Officer at about 2.30 p.m. In course of the meeting the SP came to learn about the detention of the Officer Incharge Bikramganj PS in the Court of District & Sessions Judge as a result of which the police officers were agitated and contemplating to boycott the panchayat election on 20-1-2002. The SP gave necessary direction to the Dy. S.P. Sasaram. The Additional Collector also informed that after hurriedly finishing the meeting at Bikramganj they left for Sasaram reaching there at about 4.30 p.m. There he came to learn about the slogan shouting by some police officers in front of the Court of District & Sessions Judge and the resultant scuffle between the lawyers and the policemen. On coming to know about the incident the SP immediately raised to contact the District & Sessions Judge on telephone but failed to get any appointment The Additional Collector also stated that the SP admonished the Police Officers who were present in the scheduled meeting telling them that dignity of the Court had to be maintained in any case and the incident which had taken place was unfortunate and unpardonable.

19. As indicated above, if it is a fact that the SP was busy in the scheduled meetings to review the law and order situation in connection with the panchayat election to be held on the next day, in my opinion, he has sufficient alibi for being let off. If he was present at Bikramganj and holding meeting with the local officers, along with the Additional Collector from 2.15-2.30 p.m. reaching Sasaram at 4.30 p.m., it would be difficult to accept that at his instigation the incident took place. There is no suggestion that he instigated the police officers from Bikramganj on telephone or otherwise. Perhaps, the presence of the SP in the chambers of the Dy. S.P. later in the day created the impression in the mind of the District & Sessions Judge that he too had a hand in the incident, but as noticed above, the meeting in the chambers of the Dy. SP was a scheduled meeting in connection with the killing of a local business man on 16-1-2002. Earlier he had gone to the chambers of the SDO for the law and order meeting in connection with the panchayat election. In these premises I have no hesitation in accepting the show-cause of the SP and exonerating him of the charge.