S K MALVIYA Vs. SHIVEHARAN KURNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, made by Sessions Judge Damoh for taking action for contempt against contemnors 1 to 6. Notices were issued to the contemnors and also to Anandilal son of Ramdayal.

(2.) The said Amandilal, his brother Bhagwandas, One Sitaram and others residelit of village Ghutariya, Tahsil Hatta, are being prosecuted under sections 147, 148 302, and 149 I.P.C. for committing murder of Gopi on 9.7. 1982 in Crime N-48/82 of Gaisabad police station contemner no. 1 Shiveharan Kurmi is a relation of the deceased. In bail application no. 481/82 by order dated 31.7.1982 Anandilal was released on anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge who rejected the application of Bhagwandas. While granting bail, the Sessions Judge observed that it is alleged that Anandilal came out with a lathi and Bhagwandas with a gun and he shouted Mare Sale Ke but there is no overt act against Anandilal, thereafter the deceased was killed by the other co-accused. On 5.8. 1982 contemner no. 5 Sri Balram Tiwari, Public Prosecutor Damoh, moved an application for cancellation of bail of Anandilal alleging that he had gone to village Badkhare with his brothers and had told villagers: og vius rhu ikS :i;s nsdj tekuj ij fjgk gks x;k gS rFkk bih rjhds is vfFlk;qDrx.k Hkxoku nki o ihrkjke dks Hkh NqzMk yk;sxk**A It was further alleged that Anandilal stayed in the village and was threatening the witnesses in the case. Along with the application Photostat copy of the report lodged by contemner no. I Shiveharan Kurmi to police station Hatta on 4.8.82 and also affidavits of contemner 2 to 4 Hariram, Sitaram and Ramsewak were enclosed in support of the allegations. The three deponent in their affidavits were identified by contemner no. 6 Sri Herbanslal Awasthy, a practicing Advocate of Damoh. Notice was issued to Anandilal and he denied the allegations. He submitted that he never visited the village and the allegations are false and mischievous. In fact, in pursuance of the order of the Sessions Judge he went and offered his bail but he was illegally detained in the police station and ultimately released on bail on 12.8.1982. According to him, he and his brothers were eyewitnesses in the murder case of Barelal Kurmi in village Barkhara in the year 1978 in which Raghven dra Hajari, the then -sitting M.L.A., and his brothers were convicted by the trial Court but they have been acquitted by this Court in appeal and so in order to take revenge and by using their political influence. Allandilal and his brother Bhagwandas have been falsely implicated in the present case. At present, Raghvendra Hajari's wife Shehlata Hajari is a sitting M.L.A. of the ruling party. He never made any imputation against the applicant nor he had threatened the witnesses. By order dated 27.8.1982 the Sessions Judge rejected the application of cancellation of bail observing that the allegations that Anandilal along with Bhagwandas & Sitaram visited village Barkhera and made the imputation and threatened the villagers are false. Anandilal was actually released on bail on 12.8.1982 and it was stupid on his part to go to Barkhera on 2.8.82 or 3.8.82 and nor would he have boasted how he got bail. In the report lodged by Shiveharan, the visit was stated to be on 3.8.1982 but in the affidavits of Hariram, Sitaram and Ramsewak the visit was said to be on 2.8.1982. Neither in the report nor in the affidavits there is mention about the presence of Bhagwandas and Sitaram in the said visit. So the story is a work of imagination and has purposefully concocted in order that Anandilals bail may be cancelled and also that bail is not granted to Bhagwandas and Sitaram. This order of the Sessions Judge was affirmed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 42/83 on 15.2.1983.

(3.) It appears the Sessions Judge thereafter decided to hold a preliminary enquiry into the allegations made in the application for cancellation of bail by registering Misc. Cr. Case No. 17/82 on 10.9.1982. The Sessions Judge recorded the statements of Sri Balram Tiwari, Shri Harbanslal Awasthy, Sri MY. Siddiqui, Notary who had sworn the affidavits, A.K. Tiwari, clerk of Sri Balram Tiwari and three Advocates Sarva Shri Ramesh Shrivastava, G.S. Mehta and B.K. Tandon. The Sessions Judge then made this reference to this Court saying that the contents of the application for cancellation of bail, the report given to the police station by Shiveharan and the affidavits sworn by Hariram, Sitaram and Ramsewak are contemptuous and are made with the intention of scandalizing the Court and interfering with the administration of justice. The allegations appear to have been made with the ulterior motive of influencing the probable orders which might be passed on the applications of bail which might be presented in future on behalf of Bhagwandas and Sitaram. These allegations of payment of money to the, Judge are false, mischievous and made with the intention of lowering down the prestige of the Court of Session and to make it a subject of public ridicule. Shri Tiwari stated that Shri Awasthy Advocate is the person who had drafted tile application and who was instrumental in getting the affidavits sworn by the witnesses and this is corroborated from the statements of Shri A.K. Tiwari and Shri Siddiqui. It is worth noting that the person who drafted the application has exaggerated the allegation in the report and the affidavits by adding. vius rhu ikS :i;s nsdj tekur ii fjgk gks x;k**A So the contemners should be punished under section 3 of the Act.