H SINGH KHALSA Vs. B L NARENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 9-1-1997: this contempt proceeding has been instituted by Dr. H. Singh khalsa, whom we shall hereinafter refer to as the 'complainant' and who was at the relevant time running Khalsa Medical and Educational trust. The complainant claims that he is specialised in the field of electropathy/electro Homeopathy, which is an alternate system of medicine and it is his case that the Trust was running an institution by name khalsa Institute of Medical Sciences for the purpose of doing research and imparting education in this particular branch of medicine to persons who are desirous of obtaining such knowledge. The Trust and the Institute were granting certificates to the candidates who successfully complete their training and examination. It is the case of the complainant that he is fully and perfectly entitled to carry on this profession of his and according to him, the decision taken by the State authorities who were of the view that since this system of medicine is not recognised, that he has committed illegalities is unjustified. The authorities had earlier taken action against the petitioner and that is the background of litigation which culminated in the complainant obtaining an order from this Court because he apprehended further arrest and this Court on such a petition being filed, passed an order in favour of the complainant directing that in the event of his arrest, he should be released on bail on the sum of Rs. 5,000/ -. Apart from this, the complainant also points out that while disposing of an earlier writ petition, this Court had directed the police authorities not to interfere with the complainant's institution except in accordance with law. It is in this background that the incidents which have given rise to the filing of the present contempt proceedings took place.

(2.) THE complainant alleges that the respondent, who at the relevant time was an Assistant Commissioner of Police, is alleged to have acted on the complaint filed by the Registrar, Karnataka Ayurvedic and Unani practitioners Board, and arrested the complainant at the institute at 11. 30 a. m. on 4-1-1995. The complainant has made very serious accusations against the respondent which we are briefly summarising. He contends that the respondent locked the institution which act was in breach of the earlier directions of the High Court not to interfere with the working of the institute and he thereafter contends that despite his having shown to the respondent the anticipatory bail order which had been passed in his favour, that the respondent is alleged to have contemptuously said that such Court orders are nothing but scraps of paper. It is alleged that the respondent is supposed to have refused to abide by the Court order and that consequently he did not release the complainant on bail as directed in that Court order. He further contends that he was retained in custody right upto 9. 30 p. m. on the following night and that in the course of this operation the respondent took charge of the amount of Rs. 2,500/- which was on his person. According to the complainant, the respondent finally released him after taking a personal bond on the night of 5-1-1995. Prior to this, the respondent had demanded that the complainant pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and he has also demanded that the complainant should pay Rs. 5,000/- per student in order to get out of the prosecution. In addition to this, the respondent is alleged to have threatened the complainant and to have warned him that he should not complain about anything that had happened in any court and more importantly that he should withdraw the writ petition and any other legal proceedings which had been instituted by him. According to the complainant, on the next morning he was once again arrested by the Madiwala Police Station under the directions of the respondent and on this occasion, the complainant's wife and some other persons were also arrested and the accused were produced before the learned Magistrate who released them on bail. The complainant points out that he complained to the learned Magistrate that he had been arrested on 4-1-1995 and the learned Magistrate had recorded this fact in the order passed by him. After his release, the complainant addressed a detailed complaint containing the above allegations against the respondent to the police authorities, but it is his case that they refused to take note of that complaint. Thereafter, the complainant has instituted the present proceedings.

(3.) THERE is one crucial aspect of the matter on which the complainant's Counsel has placed very strong reliance viz. , the fact that the reports of the police action appeared in the press on 8-1-1995 and learned Counsel submitted that this was on the basis of a press release issued by the respondent's office. The learned Counsel has obtained a copy of that press release and produced it before the Court and since there was a dispute with regard to the contents of this press release, this court directed the department to produce an authentic copy of the same which completely tallies with the statement is paragraph 1 of that press release which proceeds to state that on 4-1-1995 the respondent along with his staff raided the complainant's institute and that action has been taken by way of seizure of documents and that the complainant was also placed under arrest. We are not concerned with the remaining portion of that press release. The complainant's learned Counsel has placed strong reliance on this document because he submits that it is a record emanating from the office of the respondent and he submits that it establishes conclusively that the complainant was arrested on 4-1-1995. This aspect of the matter assumes crucial importance because the respondent has stated that the State Government had taken the view that the course in question being an unauthorised one that the complainant was misleading and cheating the student community by holding out that they were being validly qualified in the course of medicine and by issuing certificates to them which were absolutely worthless insofar as they were not eligible to practise.