A RAMAMOHANA RAO Vs. CHALASANI PURNACHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the respondents in Contempt Case No. 33/80 to dismiss the contempt case in limine on the ground that the consent of the Advocate General in writing, as required by Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was not obtained.

(2.) The respondent in this application. who is an advocate of Hanarmkonda, Warangal district, filed the application for contempt with the following allegations : One Vasudevareddy filed Crl.M.P. No. 333/80 before the Judl. First Class Magistrate at Parkhal for the issue of a search warrant for the search of eight persons specified therein alleging wrongful confinement of eight persons in the Police Station at Narasampet. The Judl. I Class Magistrate issued a search warrant on 3-4-1980 and appointed Mr. Rama Swamy, Advocate as a Commissioner to conduct a search of the Police Station at Narasampet and to take into custody the eight persons mentioned therein and produce them before the Court. On 3-4-1980 at about 7-45 a.m., the Commissioner, Mr. Rama Swamy, Vasudevareddy and the petitioner in the contempt petition went to the Police Station at Narasampet along with three panchas. The second respondent the Sub-Inspector was present at that time. The Commissioner showed the Sub-Inspector the search warrant and requested G.D. book for verification of the eight persons who are in the Police Station lock-up. The Sub-Inspector however refused to show the G.D. book. The Commissioner then gave a notice to the Sub-Inspector asking him to show the G.D. Book for verification. The Sub-Inspector refused to receive the notice. Therefore, the Commissioner was constrained to conduct a panchanama of these refusals. He proceeded to conduct the panchanama in front of the lock-up room. While he was writing the description given by the persons in the lockup, the first respondent, i.e. the Deputy Superintendent of Police accompanied by the Sub-Inspector angrily went up to the Commissioner and snatched away the papers which the Commissioner was holding. The first respondent then asked the Commissioner to follow him, to the table of the second respondent and threatened Vasudevareddy and the three panchas and made them leave the Police Station. He then instructed the Commissioner not to interview the confined persons and not to conduct any panchanama. Thereafter, he issued a letter signed by the second respondent stating that the confined persons were arrested on 3-4-1980 under Section 151, Cr.P.C. and they would be produced before the Judicial I Class Magistrate. Thereafter, he returned the papers snatched by the first respondent to the Commissioner and directed the Commissioner and others to go away from the Police Station. On these allegations, the petitioner stated that the conduct of the respondents amounted to criminal contempt under Sections 2(c)(ii) and 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act as it interfered with the administration of justice and with judicial proceeding and he therefore prayed that the Court should punish the respondents for committing criminal contempt.

(3.) The Contempt petition was admitted and notice was issued on 9-6-80 returnable on 7-7-80. After the notices were served, a counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents and after hearing all the parties concerned, this Court by its order dated 10-7-1980 directed the District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, to record the evidence adduced by the petitioner as well as the respondents and submit the record of evidence to this Court. Accordingly, the District and Sessions Judge, Warangal proceeded to record the evidence and we are informed that the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner is closed. At this stage. the alleged contemners have filed this application to dismiss the Contempt Petition on the ground that the consent in writing of the Advocate-General was not obtained.