PANNA LAL Vs. R R SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PANNALAL has filed this application for proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act against Sri R. K. Sinha, Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. In April 1960 the applicant had published a pamphlet alleged to be containing a defamatory matter against the then District Planning Officer and Harijan Welfare Officer. Fatehpur. with the result that on 5-10-1960 the Public Prosecutor instituted two complaints against Pannalal under Section 500 I. P. C. which were registered as Special Trial nos. 3 and 4 of 1900 Both the cases were being heard together and ultimately 27-7-64 was fixed for defence evidence On 277-64 the applicant, instead of adducing defence evidence, moved applications in both the cases raising a preliminary objection that the sanction granted by the State Government for prosecuting the applicant was not according to law; hence the court could not proceed further with those cases Thereupon the Sessions Judge (Sri R. K. Sinha) ordered that the applications were very belated and he would decide the point at the time of arguments. However, one more opportunity was given to the applicant and 3rd August 1964, was fixed for defence evidence and arguments With a view to file applications under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. in the High Court against the aforesaid orders dated 27-7-64. the applicant came to Allahabad and is alleged to have sent telegrams from there on 3-8-64 to the Sessions Judge and his counsel at Fatehpur reading: "seriously ill. Medical certificate follows. Cases nos. 3 and 4 of 1960" These telegrams did not reach either of them till after the lunch hour, when the cases were called for the second time on 3-8-64. The applicant being absent, and no applications having been made by his counsel for adjournment of the cases, the Sessions Judge cancelled the bail of the applicant and issued non-bailable warrants in both the cases against him fixing 8-8-64 for his production

(2.) ON 5-8-64 the applicant had moved a petition under Section 561-A Cr. P. C. in the High Court with regard to the order passed in Special Trial No. 3 of 1960. refusing to decide the preliminary objection forthwith; but no such application was filed that day with regard to the other case. viz. , Special Trial No. 4 of 1960 Satish Chandra. J admitted the petition and stayed further proceedings meanwhile. On 7-8-64 the applicant went to the Court of the Sessions Judge along with an application and its annexures to be filed in Special Trial No. 3 of 1960 saving that on account of his illness the applicant was unavoidably absent on 3-8-64. The prayer contained in the application was for recalling his warrant and taking fresh sureties. At the end, it was stated that the High Court had already stayed further proceedings in the case and a certified copy of the order was being annexed thereto A similar application was also filed in Special Trial No. 4 of 1960 with suitable amendments, and it was also stated that the certified copy of the High Court's stay order has been filed in connected Trial No. 3 of 1960

(3.) THERE is considerable controversy about the sequence, time and manner of presentation of these applications before the court on 7 864. According to the applicant he had first presented the above application in person in Trial No. 3. together with its annexures. to the Sessions Judge, as soon as he had entered the court room, yet, after perusing the same as well as the accompanying stay order granted by the High Court, the Sessions Judge put the applicant in custody and then slaved the proceedings in the case: while, according to the Sessions Judge, the applicant had first been put under arrest (as soon as he had filtered the court room) and it was then that he had moved the aforesaid application. The Sessions Judge stated that on rending the contents of the application and the stay order, all further proceedings were stayed in compliance with the directions of the High Court, in case No. 3 while in case No. 4 the Judge himself stayed the proceedings, as prayed for by the applicant. Thus, according to the applicant, the Sessions Judge had intentionally disobeyed the order of the High Court by taking him into custody in spite of having read the stay order and thereby committed contempt of the High Court as well as of his own court. On the other hand, according to the Sessions Judge, he had implicitly obeyed the order of the High Court as soon as it came to his knowledge Rut he had already put the applicant under arrest before reading the order, therefore, he could not have granted his bail application in view of the stay order by the High Court. which had since been brought to his notice.