STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. SATENDRA SINGH TOMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This is one of the cases in contempt proceedings where a Judicial Officer is alleged to have been assaulted, humiliated and put to mental torture in the performance of his judicial function.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that Sri N. K. Jain, the complainant, (hereinafter referred to as the office was functioning as Judge Small Causes Court, Saharanpur at the relevant time. He had decided a case under Section 21 of the U.P. Uran Buildings Regulation Act registered as P.A. case No. 33 of 1993, Nisar v. Anwar. Irfan is alleged to have filed an application for setting aside the said order. This application was rejected on 16-4-1993. It is further alleged that on 17/04/1993 Sri satendra Singh Tomar, the contemner, appeared before the officer with an application that the process for ejectment of the applicant in P.A. Case No. 33 of 1993 be recalled from the executing authority concerned. To put in the words of the complainant-officer on Saturdays regular work was not taken up because lawyers used to observe each Saturday as strike day as part of their campaign for the establishment of a Bench of High Court in the Western district. Sri Satendra Singh Tomar, Advocate, (hereinafter referred to as contemner) entered into his chamber and requested that his application in P.A. case be heard on the same day. At that time Sri Kulbhushan Gupta, Panel Lawyer (Criminal) attached with his Court was also present in the chamber. The officer moved to his Court room after the record was brought to the Court from the office by the clerk concerned, namely, Sri Praveen Kumar Sharma. The officer occupied his seat at the dais and scrutinised the papers of P.A. case No.33 of 1993. He did not find power (Vakalatnama) of Sri Satendra Singh Tomar on the record. The application which was brought for orders, was signed by another Advocate namely Sri Anwar Ali who was not present in the Court room. Sri Satendra Singh Tomer was pointed out this omission and he promised to file Vakalatnama in the midst of the arguments. The officer, after hearing him, dictated the detailed order rejecting his prayer at the dais itself and retired to his chamber and thereafter the following incidence took place as stated in paragraphs10,11, 12, and 13 of the complaint made by the officer, which reads as under :-

(3.) The officer on the same date reported the matter to the Districtand Sessions Judge, Saharanpur requesting him to take necessary action in the matter and provide him with the security. He also got, on the same date, examined himself by a doctor of District Hospital, Saharanpur. Sri Praveen Kumar Sharma was also examined in the hospital who had also received injuries. The next day i.e. on 18/04/1993 he submitted a reference to the Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad requesting that the matter may be placed before this Court to draw contempt proceeding against the contemner under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with the allegations referred to above. On 21-4-1993 he also sent the affidavits sworn by Sri Mangoo Lal Singhal, Reader, Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal, Steno, Sri Praveen Kumar Sharma, Ahalmad, Sri Rampal, Ardali, Sri Seth Pal Sharma, Peon and the affidavit of Sri Kulbhushan Gupta, Panel Lawyer (Criminal). The matter was placed before the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and the matter was directed to be placed before the Court exercising the jurisdiction in criminal contempt matter.