BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA Vs. SAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint has been received from Sri. P. K. Soyuz, Advocate, High Court of Kerala, addressed to the President / Secretary, District Bar Association dated 15.11.2000 alleging that Sri. Soyuz and his colleague Advocate A. Satheesh Kumar of Karunagappally Bar were illegally detained by Sri. S. Saju, Sub Inspector of Police, Chavara Police Station on the varanda of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally. The above complaint was forwarded by the Kerala High Court Advocates Association to the Chief Justice along with a copy of their resolution requesting action in the matter. It is alleged that the two advocates were in robs and they were representing the accused in C.C. No. 752/98 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally. According to the complaint, the above mentioned two advocates were prevented by the Sub Inspector of Police from entering the Court Hall of JFCMC, Karunagappally and they were showered with abuses. They were also threatened with dire consequences. It was only after the intervention of other advocates of Karunagappally Bar and the people assembled in front of the Court Hall on seeing the commotion, the advocates could enter the Court Hall. They had made a complaint before the learned Magistrate about the incident. A written complaint was filed on 15.11.2000.

(2.) The allegation is that the Sub Inspector of Police, Chavara Police Station, Sri. S. Saju has committed contempt of court by his above action. When the representation of the Ernakulam Bar Association along with the complaint made by the advocates were taken up, we heard the President of the Advocates' Association Sri. Abraham Vakkanal and learned Government Pleader on the procedure to be adopted in this case.

(3.) Three orders passed by two learned Judges of this Court in this matter were brought to our notice. They are orders in Crl. M. C. No. 419/2000 dated 28.1.2000, Crl. M. C. No. 2448/2000 dated 30.5.2000 and Crl. M. C. No. 5874/2000 dated 10.11.2000. In these cases, learned Single Judges have taken the view that the Subordinate Court has no jurisdiction to issue notice directly to the alleged condemner while proceeding under S.15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It has been held that the proper procedure is to refer the matter to this Court. In the light of the above, notices issued to the alleged condemner by the Subordinate court were quashed as having been issued without jurisdiction.