COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. SUBRATA BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition was registered by the Court on its own motion on the basis of a report submitted by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur.

(2.) In the said report the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur has stated that on 02.9.2015 he along with Sri Samyajyoti Debnath, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) set out on foot for court from their official residence. In front of the gate they met with a group of picketers who requested them not to go to court. After some polite arguments, he convinced them that their right to travel on foot cannot be curtailed & they allowed them to continue. On reaching court they found a large number of picketers. Majority of their staffs were scattered in and around the court perimeter. After some slogan bazi, a bespectacled man who seemed to be the leader & whose name he later learnt to be Subrata Bhattacharjee told him not to attend court. When he told him that they were duty bound, he told that he will only allow the officers to pass & alleged that court employees were creating tension. When he asked how, he said, that they were not dispersing though told to do so by picketers. He told him that they are also duty bound to attend the court. He entered the court premises by opening the door & Sri S. Debnath followed him. When they had just settled in our chamber, they heard some commotion outside. He rushed out & saw that two of their staff were being jostled, manhandled & abused. One of them was grabbed by collar & pushed to a corner & would have been beaten up but for timely intervention of Sri Jayanta Singha Choudhury, Ld. Counsel. He spoke to both staff but they are not willing to make a formal complaint which is understandable because of the fear psychosis.

(3.) On the basis of this report we had issued notice to the contemnor who initially fled reply alleging that the contempt proceedings were not maintainable and the at the same time he had stated that he had full respect for the Magistrate in the Court. Thereafter, fresh affidavit has been fled in which he has stated that he did not have any intention to interfere with the running of the business of the Court but the unintentional incident occurred on the spur of the moment based on lack of knowledge about the nature of functioning of the Court. It is not possible for us to accept his version that he was not aware about the running of the business of the Court. However, he has expressed his regret for such occurrence in the administration of justice. He has apologized for his conduct and we have accepted his apology. The action of the respondent in trying to overawe the Addl. Sessions Judge and prevent the Court staff from functioning is totally reprehensible. Nobody has the right to prevent anybody else from doing their work especially works of Courts. If any person does not want to attend Court he may do so at his own risk.