STATE OF U P Vs. DEG RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings were initiated against the contemners on the reference made by Sri S.P Srivastava, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, jalaun at Oral dated 25-9-1980.

(2.) It appears that on 28th July, 1980 the said Magistrate was recording statement of PW 1 Sri Girja Shankar Misra in Criminal Case No. 574 of 1980, State v. Ashok Kumar, under Section 354 of the T. P. C, in his court room at about 0.15 p.m., his attention was attracted by some police personnel who intruded in the dock of his court room and he found two accused being dragged from the dock forcibly out of the court room. He was informed that the two persons in the dock had arrived there to surrender in court in State v. Narendra Singh and Ors. under Section 302 of the I.P.C. of police station Kotwali, district Oral. The Magistrate on query learnt from the clerk of Sri Anand Swarup Yadav, a practising advocate of his court that the two dragged out per-sons were Surendra Singh and Ramesh Singh who were there in the dock for surrender in connection with their surrender application paper No. 3 ka of Misc. Case No. 265 of 1980 dated 28-7-1980. However, they could not be taken into custody by the Magistrate under Section 167-A of the Cr. P.C. as they had already been carried away by the intruders. The names of the intruders given in application paper No. 6 Ka were Sarva Sri Degraj Singh, S.H. O. Kotwali, Sub-Inspector Sri Aslam, Sri Yagyadatt Pai, Sub-Inspector, M, K. Khan, Sub-Inspector, Virendra Singh, Sub-Inspector and Gufran, Constable. This application was ordered to be placed on the file by the learned Magistrate under his order dated 28-7-1980. The shoes and chappals lying near the dock allegedly belonging to two accused were collected and sealed on the application of their advocate paper No. 5 Ka at the same time. Surrender application paper No. 3Ka became infructuous as the accused had already been carried away. By a subsequent application dated 29-7-1980 names of all the persons who had dragged away the two accused from the dock were supplied by their advocate. The number increased to nine. The names of Sarvasri Sheo Mangal, Jai Prakash Sachan and Amat Singh Bhadoria, constable were added vide application paper No, 7 Ka. A miscellaneous case was registered against them. The names of their associates eleven in number could not be disclosed us their identity was unknown to applicants. Learned Magistrate in the preliminary enquiry had the affidavits of Sarvasri Sheo Ram, Govind Singh, Surendra Singh and Ram Dutt Doholiya, clerk of Sri Anand Swarup Yadav, Advocate vide papers Nos. 10 Ka, 11 Ka, 17 Ka and 18 Ka dated 31-7-1980 statement of Sri Hari Shanker Khare, reader, Sri Ranvir Singh, Assistant Prosecuting Officer, Orai attached to his court, Sri Anand Prakash, court constable and Sri Udai Narain Srivastava and Sri Raja Ram Chaturvedi, Advocates, Orai were recorded on oath vide papers Nos. l2Ka to 14Ka, 15Ka and 19Ka. The contemners were notified and served to show cause against the reference. Except Sri Amar Singh Bhadoria, remaining contemners were sent up to this Court. After protracted proceedings contemners appeared in this Court and were required to meet the charge drawn on 21-12-1981. In defence contemners filed their counter-affidavits traversing the aforesaid allegations and also explaining the GD entry relating to the apprehension of Surendra Singh and Ramesh Singh on that noon; copy of that GD entry is annexure C8 showing the arrest of the accused Ramesh Singh and Surendra Singh by Sarvasri Degraj Singh, Yagyadatt Rai, Shyam Babu, constables Balram Singh, Raghunandan Singh, Ram Bahadur and Vishram Singh.

(3.) Sarvasri Mohd. Aslam, Shankei Dayal Tripathi, Virendra Singh, Jai Prakash Sachan, Sheo Mangal Singh, Ram Bahadur and Gufran filed counter-affidavits denying their participation in the occurrence and put forward their plea of alibi. Rejoinder affidavits have been filed by Sri S.P. Srivastava. However, in view of the allegations on record and the nature of evidence before us we accept their affidavits and extend benefit of reasonable doubt to these contemners and discharge the notices issued to them.