STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. J.V. PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference has been made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kandhar, District Nanded alleging that Police Sub -Inspector J.V. Patil of Kandhar Police Station, Deputy Superintendent of Police Takalkar, who was in charge of the said Police Station and Police Constable Pundlik have committed contempt of Court. The reference was made by him on May 5, 1973. It had to go to the District and Sessions Judge, Nanded and the learned District Judge gave his opinion by his letter dated September 26, 1973 and sent the papers to this Court. The matter then came up before our learned brother Deshpande J., Administrative Judge and he directed to place the matter before the Division Bench for taking action under the provisions of Section 2(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against J.V. Patil, Police Sub -Inspector, Takalkar, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Pundlik, Police Constable for non -compliance of the Court's orders from time to time and for their acts of undermining, scandalizing, prejudicing and interfering etc. with the administration of justice. It is because of the administrative direction of the learned Administrative Judge that the matter was placed before the Division Bench consisting of Deshpande and Aggarwal JJ. Our learned brothers issued a rule and ordered the matter to be expedited on November 22, 1973. It is in this way that the matter has come up before us for hearing first on July 17, 1974. At that time we had directed both the State as well as the opponents to produce all the affidavits as well as all the documents and other papers that they want to, for the purpose of disposing of this reference finally. The parties filed all the documents and affidavits and the matter, therefore, came up for hearing before us.

(2.) THE complaint of Mr. D.L. Agarwal, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kandhar by his letter dated May 5, 1973 against the opponents is that he received a report from Kandhar Police Station in Crime No. 8 of 1973, after he was posted at Kandhar on June 22, 1972, that time be extended to submit a charge -sheet because the investigation was not completed. Time was granted and the matter came up before the Magistrate from time to time on July 4, 1972, July 17, 1972 and lastly on July 31, 1972. On that date he found that no request for extension of time was made after June 22, '1972 and also found that no charge -sheet was submitted against the accused although he was in jail. He, therefore, directed the Police to produce the case diaries in respect of the investigation carried out till then. 'When he perused the ease diaries, after they were submitted to him, he found opponent No. 1 Sub -Inspector J.V. Patil mentioning on May 18, 1972 that there was no evidence against the accused and recommending the release of the accused under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also found opponent No. 1 mentioning on May 22, 1972 that he should request for 'A' final summary meaning thereby that there was no evidence against the accused. The Court in the background of the contents of the case diaries on the other hand found that opponent No. 1 demanded extension of time for submitting the charge -sheet on June 22, 1972. It is because of these circumstances that the Magistrate was of the opinion that the accused was detained from May 9, 1972 onwards without any reasonable or proper cause and that therefore the detention was illegal. In that view of the matter, therefore he issued a Show Cause Notice on August 1, 1972 to opponent No. 1 Sub -Inspector Patil demanding explanation for dereliction of duty resulting in the wrongful detention of the accused. He also wanted to know why an action in accordance with law should not be taken against him. He was, therefore, asked to be present before the Court on August 3, 1972. According to the Magistrate the show cause notice was received by opponent No. 1 on August 1, 1972 but he did not submit any explanation on August 3, 1972 as directed by him. He did not also attend the Court. According to the learned Magistrate opponent No. 1 had not submitted any explanation whatsoever later on.

(3.) YET a third complaint of the Magistrate is with reference to Criminal Case No. 48 of 1972 wherein accused Madhav was granted police custody remand on August 4, 1972 till August 8, 1972. According to him he waited for the arrival of the accused on August 8, 1972 because the advocate for the accused had filed an application for grant of bail but the accused was - not produced before the Court till 5.30 p.m. He was produced at his residence at 5.45 p.m. by a Constable and on inquiry he learnt that opponent No. 1 had directed the Constable to produce the accused before the Magistrate only after 5p.m. According to Magistrate opponent No, 1 did so because he did not want the accused to be released by the Court on that day. It is in these circumstances that the Magistrate again issued a notice to opponent No. 1 requiring him to be present before him on August 9, 1972 to show cause as to why the accused was detained at the Police Station on August 8, 1972 and that he should explain as to why he directed the Police Constable to produce the accused before him only after 5 p.m. The said show cause notice still remained to be replied by opponent No. 1 in spite' of the service of the said notice. The complaint of the Magistrate is that he could not decide the bail application because the accused was produced late and it is in this way that opponent No. 1 has committed contempt of the Court.