Name Omer Reyaz

Enrollment no. 19042122023

Semester BA. LLB 8th
Subject Legal Ethics
Submitted to DR Farhat Ma’am
Case title
Daroga Singh and ors vs B. k Pandey,
2004 SCC 26
Daroga Singh and ors
Appellant…..
Versus
B. K Pandey
Respondent…
Citation : 2004 SCC26
Date of judgement: 13/04/2004
Bench: R.C lahoti and Bhan
Status of litigation appeal (crl) 316 of
1998
Facts of the present case:
1. In this case Shri D.N Barai. Ist Additional District and session Judge, Bhagalpur
was attacked and assaulted by a large number of non-uniformed Police officers,
armed with lathis and other weapons and shouting slogans Following the day on
the bail petition of investigation Officer Joku Singh was dismissed for withdrawal
by the party .
2.They demand the unconditional release of Singh who had been remanded to
Judicial custody, in accordance with a non- bailable warrant that had been Issued
against him by the said Magistrate, for his continual failure to appear For cross-
examination before the court despite of being repeated notices and Show cause
have been issued and served.
3.The 5th Additional. District & Session Judge and the District and session Judge
Submitted reports to the High Court which disclosed the name of the police
Officials who were identified by the Ist Additional District and session Judge Shri
D.N Barai , Court staff and lawyers .
4.On the basis of these reports, proceedings under the contempt of court Act,
1926 were initiated in the High Court of Patna and a direction was issued to The
Registry to issue notice to the above referred persons along with a copy of The
report.
5.Containing allegations against the concerned persons and calling upon them a
Show cause notice as to why suitable action not be taken against them for the
Alleged misconduct .
6.The Director General of Police found that the said officers guilty for the Alleged
incident and subsequently to the State Government suspended these Policies
officials from the service.
7.A commission of inquiry was also set up under the Provisions of the Commission
of the Inquiries Act ,1952.
8.The commission found that the 26 officers were involved in the commission Of
crime .
9.That the show cause notice were issued to those 26 officers, as why they Should
not be proceeded against the criminal contempt.
10.After considering the evidence on record, eight persons were ordered to
Undergo the simple improvement for two months whereas “the ring leader “Who
was found to have incited the act was undergo three months Imprisonment.
Issues for consideration: -
1. Whether the High Court can take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have
been Committed in respect of court subordinate to it and whether such
allegations constitute an offence under section 228 of IPC?
2. Whether the High Court can take suo moto notice of the contempt of a
court subordinate to it?
3. Whether the standard of proof required in criminal contempt is the same as
in a criminal Charge?
*ARGUMENTS:-
Arguments advanced by Appellants: -
It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court by the appellants that since the
Alleged Contempt was that of a court subordinate to High Court and the
allegations Made Constitute an offence punishable under Section 228 of IPC, the
High Court Could not take cognizance as it was barred from doing so under
proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The second contention raised on behalf of the appellant is the High Court cannot
On its own motion take action of a criminal contempt of a subordinate court.
According to the Learned counsels, the High Court can take cognizance of criminal
Contempt under Section 15(2) of the Act of a subordinate court only on a
reference Made to it by the Subordinate court or on a motion made by the
Advocate General. Since the procedure was not followed. The initiation of
proceedings for contempt Was vitiated and liable to be quashed.
The third contention raised by the appellant was that the standard of proof
required In the criminal contempt is the same as in a criminal charge and
therefore the charge Of Criminal contempt has to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Appellants also Contended that they could not be convicted on the basis of
affidavits filed. The Witnesses Should have been examined in court and in any
case the appellants should Have been Given an opportunity to cross-examine the
persons who has deposed Against them on Affidavits. It was emphasized that
justice must not only be done, But must be seen to be Done by all the concerned
to establish the confidence that the Contemnor’s will receive A fair, justice and
impartial trial.
Arguments advanced by the Respondent: -
The respondents rejected the contention raised by the appellant by referring to a
Judgment of a constitution bench of this court Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy vs The
State Of Madras ,1952 SCR 425.In that case, sub-section (3) of section 2 of the
Contempt of Courts Act,1926 which is similar to proviso to section 10 of the Act
Was under Consideration. Section2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926
provided 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 IPC. Interpreting this section, it was held that sub-
section (3) Excluded the jurisdiction of the High Court to take cognizance of a
contempt alleged To have been committed in respect Of a court subordinate to it
only in cases where The acts alleged to constitute contempt are punishable as
contempt under specific Provisions of IPC, but not where these acts merely
amount to offences of other Description for which punishment has been provided
in the IPC. This would be clear By the language of the sub 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”. We respectfully agree with the
reason and the Conclusions arrived at in This case.
Requested that this point is concluded against the appellants by referring to a
decision Of this court In S.K.Sarkar Member Board of Revenue, UP Lakhnow, vs.
Vinay Chandra Misra [1981(1)SCC436] .In this case an Advocate filed a petition
before The High Court under the contempt of Courts Act appellant therein as a
member of Revenue board made certain contemptuous remarks, acted in a
manner which Amounted to criminal contempt of the court of revenue board, in
which Advocate Was the council for one of the parties. The advocate requested
the High Courts to Take suo moto action under the contempt of court Act against
the member of the Revenue Board or pass such orders as it deems fit. The
question for determination Was whether the High Court was competent to take
cognizance of contempt of Subordinate court when it was moved by a private
Petitioner and not in accordance With either of the two motions mentioned in
section 15(2). The provision in section 10 is a replica of section 3 of the 1952 Act.
The phrase “courts subordinate to it” Used in section 10 is wide enough to include
all courts which are judicially Subordinate to the High Court, even though
administrative control over them under Article 235 of the constitution does not
vest in the High Court. Under Article 227 of The Constitution, the High Court has
the power of superintendence over all courts And tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises Jurisdiction. Harmoniously construed,
section 10 and section 15(2) do not deprive the High Court Of the power to take
cognizance of criminal contempt of a subordinate court, On its Own motion, also.
If the intention of the legislature was to take away such a power From the High
Court, it would have been provided so in unequivocal language.
In response to the third contention the respondents contended that we do not
find Any Substance in this submission. The learned counsels appearing for both
the parties Have taken a stand that all possible fair and proper opportunities were
extended to Them. In View of the statements made by the counsels for the parties
it will not be Open to the Counsels at this stage to take the stand that in the
absence of cross-examination of the Concerned persons, reliance could not be
placed on the Statements which were made on Oath. Learned counsels who had
appeared for the Contemnors before the High Court did not claim the right of
cross-examination. Only At the stage of arguments a submission was made that
opportunity to cross-examine The concerned persons was not given which vitiated
the trail. High Court rejected This contention by holding that such a stand could
not be taken at that stage of Proceedings. It has been held in Arun Paswan
Case(supra)that a party who fails to Avail of the opportunity to cross-examine at
the appropriate stage is precluded from Taking the plea of non-observance of
principles of Natural justice at a later stage. Such a plea would not be tenable.
JUDGEMENTS :-
1. For the first contention the Supreme court held that what is made
punishable Under section 228 of India penal code,1860 (IPC) is the offence
of intentional Insult to a judge or interruption of court proceedings, but not
as a Contempt Of Court. The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough
to include any Act by a person which would either scandalize the court or
which tend to Interfere with the administration of justice. It would also
 include any act which Lowers the authority of the court or prejudices or
interferes with the due course Of any judicial proceedings and is not limited
to the offering of international Insult to the judge or interruption of the
judicial proceedings. The effect of The entire judiciary in the country and is
a dangerous trend which has to be Curbed. If for passing judicial orders to
the annoyance of the police officers to The presiding officers of the courts
are assaulted and humiliated, the judicial System in the country would
collapse.
2. For the second contention the court held that the phrase “Courts
subordinate To it” used in section 10 is wide enough to include all courts
which are Judicially subordinate to the High court, even though
administrative control Over them . Under Article 235 of the constitution,
the High Court has the Power of superintendence over all courts of the
power to take cognizance of Criminal contempt of a subordinate courts, on
its own motion also if the Intention of the legislature was to take away such
a power from the High court, It would have been provided so in
unequivocal language.
3. For the third contention the Supreme court held that the procedure
prescribed Under the Criminal procedure code (CrPC) or under the Evidence
Act is not Attracted by proceedings under section 15 of the contempt of
courts Act 1926. The High Court can deal with such matters summarily and
adopt it’s own Procedure. The only caution that has to be exercised by the
Court is that the Procedure followed must be fair and that the contemners
are made aware of The charges leveled against them and given a fair and
reasonable opportunity Of being heard. The judge has remain in full control
of the hearing of the case And immediate action is required to be taken to
make it effective and deterrent. When a judge is attacked by person on
whose shoulders lay the obligation of Maintaining law and order and
protecting the citizens against any unlawful Act, the act must be severely
condemned.
4. Moreover the court held that the police personnel is deployed in the court
Campus for the purpose of maintaining order and to see that not only the
judges Can work fearlessly in a calm, cool and serene atmosphere but also
see that Anyone coming to the court too feels safe and secure. Every
participant in Court proceedings is either a seeker of justice or one who
 comes to assist in Administration of justice. A policeman should never
forget that like every other Citizen he too is subjected to Rule of Law, and
that he who enforce law must Live by the law.
*DECISION:-
Appeal was dismissed and the disciplinary committees authorities, the Criminal
Courts and the commission before whom disciplinary proceedings, The
prosecution and enquiry respectively were pending, were directed to Conclude
the proceedings and trail at earliest.