ADVOCATE GENERAL ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suo motu proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act were initiated against the respondent-contemner on the allegation that the contemner forced an Advocate-Commissioner appointed by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to make an entry in the General Diary of the Police Station to the effect that he did not find Mohammed Ayub who was arrested on 9-3-1990 in the police lock-up.

(2.) One Sri. Ahamad Hussain had filed Criminal M.P. No. 395/90 under S. 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. By order dated 12-3-1990, the Magistrate appointed Sri. V. Balraj, Advocate as Commissioner to search the premises of Sanjeevareddy Nagar Police Station or any other Police Station in the twin cities, and if he found Mohammed Ayub, to produce him before the Court on 16-3-1990. On 13-3-1990, the petitioner Ahammed Hussain filed a memo in Criminal M.P. No. 396/90 alleging that the Inspector of Police, Mirchowk Police Station - Mr. Ashok Kumar, respondent herein, had obstructed the Commissioner - Sri Balraj from entering the lock-up of that Station and in the meantime, the Police Constable had shifted Mohammed Ayub to some other place and that the respondent herein forced the Advocate-Commissioner under threat and coercion to make an entry in the General Diary of the Police Station that the Commissioner did not find Mohammed Ayub in the lock-up of the police station.

(3.) The V Metropolitan Magistrate issued a notice to the respondent on 13-3-1990 on the basis of the memo filed by the petitioner - Ahammed Hussain. The respondent filed a counter affidavit controverting the allegations contained in the memo. The Magistrate sent up a report to this Court on the basis of the material on record proposing proceedings against the respondent under the Contempt of Court Act. The Advocate General, to whom the matter was referred, filed this Contempt Case seeking action to punish the respondent for criminal contempt of Court. We issued notice to the respondent. Respondent appeared through counsel and filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the petition and asserting that the Advocate Commissioner had made the entries in the General Diary voluntarily and not under any compulsion. When the matter came up before us, we directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to record evidence that may be produced by either side and submit a report to this Court. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad examined P.Ws. 1 to 4. P.W. 1 being the Advocate Commissioner and marked Exs. C1 to C15 on behalf of the Advocate Commissioner. The contemner examined himself as D.W. 1. In a report which contained a summary of the entire evidence before him and which the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate sent to this Court on 4-3-1993, he opined that