NAKSHATRA PAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran, J. We have heard Sri V. C. Misra, learned Senior Advocate for the contemnors and learned AGA for the State.

(2.) A reference under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was sent by the District Judge, Saharanpur, vide his letter dated 21-2-2005 that during the course of a trial in ST No. 365 of 2001, which was being conducted by Sri Virendra Kumar, Additional District and Sessions Judge/ftc No. 2, Saharanpur, two Advocates, namely, Sri Nakshatra Pal Singh and Vijay Pal Singh, terrorized the witness and also made allegations against the Presiding Officer questioning his integrity in recording the evidence, and have thereby committed criminal contempt of the Court. Sri Virendra Kumar, ADJ/ftc No. 2 had stated in his complaint to the District Judge that during the course of the trial in ST No. 365 of 2001 when the evidence was being recorded on 10-2-2005, Sri Nakshatra Pal Singh, Advocate, assisted by Vijai Pal Singh, were representing the accused Sushil and Kulvinder. In the examination-in-chief the witness PW 12 Brijesh Kumar had nominated only the accused Sushil and he had further stated that at the time of incident the police had come to the village and questioned him and he had made a disclosure about the incident. During the course of his cross-examination, PW 12, Brijesh Kumar, in response to a question by Sri Nakshatra Pal Singh, Advocate, as to whether the Daroga had recorded his "bayan", the witness had denied that the Daroga had recorded his statement. On the mere suggestion of the learned Judge that the witness may be asked whether he understood the meaning of the word "bayan" to a Daroga, the contemnors Nakshatra Pal Singh and Vijay Pal Singh started intimidating the witness Brijesh Kumar loudly and began denouncing the concerned Court for twisting the statements of the witnesses and being interested in the case. On the remark of the Court that if the Counsel chose, they could get the case transferred to some other Court, both the Counsel stormed out of the Court room. As a result, the cross-examination was held up and because of the loud threats issued by the Counsel to PW 12 Brijesh Kumar, and imputations against the impartiality and dedication of the Presiding Officer, a lot of persons, litigants, police witnesses and Court officials gathered in the Court room. In this manner, the contemnors are said to have interfered with the functioning of the Court and lowered its authority.

(3.) BY a detailed order dated 19-12-2005, after considering the decisions of the apex Court in Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras, AIR 1952 SC 149, State of M. P. v. Reva Shanker, AIR 1959 SC 102, Brahm Prakash v. State, AIR 1954 SC 10 and Arun Paswan, SI v. State of Bihar, 2004 (1) JIC 857 (SC) : 2004 (48) ACC 267, the said preliminary objection was over-ruled and an oral prayer made by Sri V. C. Misra, learned senior Counsel appearing for the contemnors, seeking permission to leave to appear before the apex Court was also refused on 19-12-2005 by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza and Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, JJ. as no substantial question of general importance was involved. It does not appear that any Appeal against the said order has been preferred before the Apex Court, because the contemnor's Counsel has given no such indication.