STATE Vs. BHAWANI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by This case is second of its kind. the first one which was the subject-matter of Criminal Original Petition No. 2 of 1967 (State v. Bhawani Singh, A S. I.) was disposed of by a Full Bench of this Court on 27th June, 1967. The incident which gave rise to the proceedings in the prior case took place at Keylong on 6th May, 1967. The incident with which we are concerned in the present proceedings occurred sometime in June, 1967, though it has its roots in the action taken by the police authorities at Keylong in January, 1967. From the order of the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Lahoul at Keylong dated 15th June, 1967 made on a miscapplication presented to that Court by one Shri Phunchog Angrup son of Shri Namgyal under section 523, Criminal Procedure Code, the following facts emerge. As alleged in that application, on 2nd January, 1967 at about 8 A. M., the local police Keylong had raided Shri Phunchog Angrup's residential house and conducted its search till about 5 P.M. in the presence of the Lambardar of the village and other respectable persons. At the time, the police people took into possession his four keys which they had not cared to return in spite of demands. Since the local police had not submitted any report to the Court of the Magistrate as to the commission of any offence necessitating search as contemplated by sections 154 and 157, Code of Criminal Procedure, and they had also failed to forward under section 165 (5) of the said Code copies of the records made under sub sections (1) or (3) of section 165, the learned Magistrate endorsed to Shri Bhawani Singh, Assistant Subinspector, Station House Officer, Keylong (respondent-contemner No. 1 in this Court) a copy of the application, asking him to report within two days along with the copies of the first information report and other search documents and also to produce the case property. The Station House Officer did not care to comply with the Courts order in spite of a subsequent reminder issued on 6th June, 1967. His reply was awaited till 8th June, 1967 but without any result. On 8th June, 1967, the Court brought the matter to the notice of the Superintendent of Police, Keylong, Shri H.C. Jatav (respondent-contemner No. 2 in this Court) requesting him to direct the Station House Officer to do the needful, but the Superintendent of Police also ignored the order of the Court. The learned Magistrate in the circumstances felt helpless and he obviously had no alternative but to proceed with recording the statement of the applicant before him, Shri Phunchog Angrup.

(2.) The main prayer made before the learned Magistrate was for the return of the case property (four keys) to the owner. In the search said to have been conducted by the local police, no search warrants had been obtained from the Court which, according to the o"der, was located only a few hundred yards from the house of the applicant. In the absence of the necessary record, it was not clear as to what were the grounds which had impelled the investigating police officer to make use of section 165(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and why the provisions of section 165(5) were not complied with. In the absence of the record, the learned Magistrate was also unable to find whether the provisions of sections 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been complied with in the matter of the search in question. The learned Magistrate has also observed in his order that no first information report seems to have been drawn up and submitted in compliance with sections 154 and 157, Criminal, Procedure Code. Finding it difficult to uphold the legality of the search, the learned Magistrate was constrained to conclude that the prayer of Shri Phunchog Angrup was genuine so far as the return of the case property was concerned. So holding, the Court ordered the four keys to be returned to the applicant. After making this order, the learned Magistrate felt compelled to record the following observations :-

(3.) Shri Bhawani Singh is represented before us by Shri Chhabil Dass, Advocate and Shri H. C. Jatav by Shri R. N. Malhotra Advocate. Both the contemmers have tendered unqualified apology by means of affidavits and thrown themselves at the mercy of the Court. They have expressed sincere regrets for what they have done and have sworn that they have the utmost regard for the law and the law Courts and that they shall always obey the prccesse issued by the Courts of law. It may be pointed out that this is a second offence of this nature committed by Shri J hawani Singh which has been brought to the notice of this Court during the last three months.