MOHD. NEZAM HASSAN Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Government Advocate. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 351 Cr.P.C because the order has been passed by the court below under Section 345 of Cr.P.C. The order is appealable under this section. The facts of the case in nutshell, are that a notice has been issued by the Additional Sessions Judge,/T.E.C.P.-1, Lucknow on 06.08.2012 alleging that the appellant, who is Deputy Superintendent of Police, presented himself in the court without proper dress contrary to the provisions of Police Manual. The learned lower court was of the view that the appellant ought to have appeared in court in proper dress in view of the provisions contained under the General Rules (Criminal).

(2.) LEARNED lower court also directed to show cause as to why case diary was not written in his own handwriting; instead the case diary was written in the handwriting of the subordinate. The learned lower court was of the view that case diary should have been written in his own handwriting and, therefore, intentional contempt has been committed by the appellant. The appellant submitted reply that he at present is posted in vigilance department where uniform is not necessary. Even he used to appear before Hon'ble the High Court in ordinary dress and not in uniform. Since he is a gazetted officer and he has been provided a stenographer and, therefore, he is empowered to dictate the case diary and get it verified at the end and he did the same and verified it in his handwriting.

(3.) LEARNED Government Advocate refuted the arguments by putting forth the plea that basically the appellant is a police officer. The appellant was Deputy Superintendent of Police at that time and under Rules and Regulations of the Police Manual he should be in proper uniform whenever visits the court in connection with an official matter. The officer violated the norms and presented the case diary which was not in his own handwriting, but in handwriting of the reader. The Court has alleged that the appellant has committed gross contempt of court by showing disrespect to the court. The appellant did not present in the court in proper uniform and thus it is apparent on the face of that he intentionally committed contempt of court. The reason shown by the appellant was that his present posting is in the vigilance department and in vigilance department, considering the nature of work he is not required to wear uniform will not absolve him from mandatory instruction of Police Manual. As far as the case diary is concerned, the submission of learned Government Advocate is that he is a class-II Gazetted Officer posted in the Government of U.P. and is empowered to get the case diary completed on dictation through his Reader or Personal Assistant, as the case may be. The appellant's counsel pointed out that though the order of the court below is per se illegal but respecting the feelings of the court below and to put an end to the matter, the appellant tendered unconditional apology.