CHINTAKRINDI VENKATESWARLU Vs. HEAD CONSTABLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A telegram dated 15-2-1977 sent to the Honourable the Chief Justice of this Court by one Chintakrindi Venkateswarlu, Guntur alleging that his son by name Hemanth, an intermediate student was kidnapped by the Head Constable, VI Town Police Station, Crime Branch, Vijayawada by name Ramesh from his residence and his whereabouts were not known and that he is apprehending danger to his son's life, was taken up as writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and notices were issued to the concerned. Pursuant to the notices issued, the Sub-Inspector of Police, VI Town Police Station, Vijayawada produced the alleged detenu Mr. Ch. Hemanth in this Court and this Court recorded his statement. The alleged detenu denied the factum of his kidnapping by the police.

(2.) The Sub-Inspector of Police, VI Town Police Station, Vijayawada also filed a counter-affidavit stating that the alleged detenu Mr. Ch. Hemanth is not wanted in any case nor any case is pending against him in his police station. He also made enquiries with the Head Constable, Mr. Ramesh who was alleged to have kidnapped the alleged detenu and found that the Head Constable had never taken the alleged detenu into custody and that the allegation that the Head Constable had kidnapped the detenu is totally false. After receipt of the notice from the High Court, he went to the house of the alleged detenu on 2-3-1977 and he found him at his residence. He informed him about the Court orders and requested him to accompany him to Hyderabad to enable him (S.I.) to produce him before the High Court. The alleged detenu agreed for the same and he accompanied the Sub-Inspector of Police to the High Court.

(3.) In view of the statement of the alleged detenu that he was not kidnapped by the police, the Sub-Inspector of Police was directed to produce the petitioner. Accordingly, the Sub-Inspector produced the petitioner and this Court recorded the statement of the petitioner who has issued the telegram. From the statement and the demeanour of the petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not speaking truth and therefore, called upon him as to why he should not be punished for committing contempt of the Court by abusing the process of this Court by issuing a false telegram. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation within three weeks from March 11, 1997 and directed to be present in the Court on 1-4-1997. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the petitioner appeared before this Court on 1-4-1997 and filed an affidavit averring, inter alia, that he is eking out his livelihood as taxi driver and that he has got three sons. He also stated that he used to stand as surety for petty offenders and that the police used to call him to the police station whenever the offenders did not attend the police station. To secure his presence, the police used to take his sons to the police station and used to enquire about him. On 14-2-1977, his son Ch. Hemanth, the alleged detenu, did not come home. He waited for one day and as his whereabouts were not known, he gave a telegram to the High Court with a disturbed mind stating that his son might have been kidnapped by the police. His son came on 16-2-1977 and he was informed that he had been to Mangalagiri. He lastly stated that he had issued the telegram bona fide believing that his son was taken by the police. He, however, prayed that if he had committed any mistake, he may be pardoned and he undertook not to repeat such things in future.