SANTHAKUMARAN Vs. PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an Advocates Clerk attached to the office of an Advocate practising in the courts at Palakkad. Petitioner is holder of a registration card issued by the Sheristadar, District Court, Palakkad. In the afternoon of 29.3 .1994 at 1O clock petitioner was standing outside the verandah of the Principal Sub-Court, Palakkad. A peon came to that place and told the petitioner that he had been asked to produce before court the persons who were found talking in the verandah. There were several persons in the court verandah including accused, witnesses, litigants and their relatives. When the peon came and announced the order of the Judge, the accused, witnesses and other persons got down from the verandah and left the place. According to the petitioner, the court peon dragged the petitioner by his collar and produced before court. Petitioner revealed that he was a registered clerk. But, the petitioner contends that the Court was not prepared to hear him and straightaway imposed a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for a week. Petitioner was upset and he paid the fine to the hearing clerk. On the next day petitioner was given a receipt for payment of Rs. 50/-. The receipt showed that the fine was collected from the petitioner in M.C. No. 1/94. Petitioner applied for a copy of the proceedings in M.C. 1/94. Till the filing of the original petition on 5.4. 1994, petitioner did not get copy of the proceedings in M.C. 1/94. Petitioner challenges the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) As the matter pertains to the administration of justice I got the remarks of the respondent, the Principal Sub Judge, Palakkad, through the District Judge, Palakkad. A detailed statement has been submitted by the Pri. Sub Judge. The substance of the statement is that on 29.3.1994 while the Pri. Sub Judge was recording the evidence of the witness in I.P. 2/92 he heard loud noise from the verandah of the court. Persons who were found talking were given warning and a Process Server was directed to see that there shall not be further interruption of the proceedings. Again there was a loud noise from the verandah at about 1.45 P.M. Then the Process Server Krishna Kumar was directed to fetch the persons who were talking loudly in the verandah. The Process Server went to the verandah and brought the petitioner to the court room. The further statement of the respondent is that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as contemplated under Section 34S, Cr. P.C. and it was read over to him and questioned. Petitioner pleaded guilty and by taking a lenient view sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default simple imprisonment for 7 days. The allegation in the original petition that the Process Server caught the petitioner by his collar and he was dragged into the Court room is not correct. It is alleged that the proceedings in the M.C. case was prepared by the respondent in open Court and the entire proceedings were read over to the petitioner.

(3.) I heard the petitionerTs counsel and the Government Pleader. It is contended by the petitioners counsel that the order passed by the respondent is fatally flawed in many respects. The respondents convicted the petitioner and imposed a fine on him invoking the powers conferred to the court under Section 345, Cr. P.C. It is important to note that procedure contemplated under Section 345, Cr. P.C. were not observed by the respondent. A copy of the impugned order passed by the respondent has been furnished along with the remarks of the respondent.