XXI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE CITY Vs. NINGEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a contempt proceeding arising out of a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore, wherein it was held that there appears to be a prima facie case for action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondent before us, who was and still is, an Assistant Commissioner of Police, by the name of Sri Ningegowda. We do not propose to elaborately set out any of the facts because, the respondent was effectively the Officer in-charge of the investigation in certain criminal proceedings namely, Crime No. 217/94 of the High Grounds Police Station, which had been instituted at the instance of one Sri Devadas. According of the complaint filed before the lower Court by Sri. B. M. Nandakumar, he and some others were anticipating their arrest for which reason, an application was filed before the Sessions Court on 24-5-1994 praying for anticipatory bail. The Sessions Court allowed the application and directed that the accused if arrested, should be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. The complainant alleges that he along with Anil Poonacha and some other persons were arrested by the respondent sometime on 28-29th May 1994. The grievance projected to the lower Court is that they are supposed to have shown a xerox copy of the anticipatory bail order to the respondent who refused to comply with it and there is a further allegation that at a subsequent point of time, four Advocates appeared on the scene and that even when they produced the copy of the Court order, that the respondent is alleged to have not only ignored it, but that he is supposed to have torn it and trampled on it with his boots. The sum and substance of the complaint is that even the superior Police Officers namely, the D.C.P. and the Commissioner of Police did not comply with the Court order and that the accused persons were produced before the learned C.J.M., Bangalore, at his residence on that night, who directed that the accused be retained in custody and produced before the regular Court on the next morning. When the accused were produced before the learned C.J.M. on the following day, he released them on bail in view of the fact that there was already a bail order in their favour.

(2.) A serious grievance was made against the Police Officer concerned to the effect that they had deliberately and wantonly disregarded the Court order and the thrust of the charge is against Ningegowda, the present respondent, namely the A.C.P., because it is alleged that he showed the maximum disrespect to the order by repeatedly disregarding it, tearing it to pieces and trampling it under his boots. In support of these charges, the learned advocates have filed certain affidavits and after considering the material before him, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the D.C.P. and the Commissioner of Police cannot be held responsible for having disregarded the Court order, but that the present respondent is squarely liable in far as there is adequate material particular in the form of the affidavits, to indicate that the Court order was produced before him and that he showed utmost disregard and contempt for that order. Undoubtedly, the allegation against the respondent is extremely serious and on the last date of hearing, the learned Advocate Sri Nagesh who represents the respondents, did vehemently contend before us that this the manner in which Police Officer treat the Court orders and he submitted that this Court must take the strictest possible view of the misconduct of the respondent and that he should be awarded exemplary punishment so that other Police Officers who dare to behave in this arrogant fashion, should know that the Courts will not tolerate any such misbehaviour on their part.

(3.) We have heard the matter in some detail today and the learned counsel who represents the respondents has taken us through the record which is considerably elaborate. This is a case in which everything has been stated on affidavit and is already on record and there is nothing more that can emerge through the recording of any oral evidence. Apart from this, this Court needs to consider as to whether at all the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge was valid in the facts and circumstances of the case and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the reference itself was misconceived, then there is no question of any further proceedings.