KUBER NAYEK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by a person who has been dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Midnapore under Section 480 Cri. P. C. and convicted and sentenced under Section 179 I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-(one hundred) only, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three weeks. The present appellant was a prosecution witness in a sessions trial in which 7 (seven) persons were being tried for alleged offences under Section 302/149 and 148 I. P. C. with the aid of 9 jurors. That trial commenced on 16th AUGUST 1960, and on the 17th AUGUST 1960 THE PRESENT APPELLANT Kuber Nayek was examined as the 4th witness for the prosecution. It appears from the Order-sheet of that sessions trial No. IV of 1960, that during the cross examination of this witness, the learned lawyer for the defence in the case filed a petition stating that the prosecution lawyer was putting and leading suggestive questions to the witness and prayed for passing necessary orders by the court. In answer to that petition, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition only slating that he did not put any suggestive question to the witness Kuber Nayek. Upon these applications the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded an order to this effect : "The Court is quite alert to prevent the P. P. from putting improper question or from putting question in an objectionable form."

(2.) The record of the deposition of the witness Kuber Nayek shows that after he had been examined by the learned Public Prosecutor upto a length, the learned Public Prosecutor was by an order noted in the record of deposition by the court allowed to put leading question. Thereafter, the learned Public Prosecutor asked him questions regarding his deposition in the court of the committing Magistrate. To those the witness answered on one occasion by saying that he did not remember if he stated so and on another occasion by saying that he did state so before the committing Magistrate. The witness stated also that the statements made by him in Jhargram Court are true. Thereafter, in the record of the deposition, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge made note that in spite of frantic efforts by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor the witness did not reply to questions he was asked about certain acts of the accused persons in that case. To another question he also did not make any reply but remained silent and to a third question also the witness did not give any answer. Thereafter, he was questioned by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and he answered those questions which have been recorded in his deposition and then he was cross-examined by the defence lawyer. It also appears from the order sheet of that sessions trial that learned Assistant Public Prosecutor then filed a petition praying for putting relevant portion of the deposition of the witness Kuber Nayek in the committing court under Section 288 Cri. p. C. as evidence in the sessions court. That prayer was allowed and the entire evidence of this witness recorded by the committing Magistrate was admitted in the sessions court under Section 288 Cri. P. C. As this witness had not replied to certain questions as mentioned above put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned Additional Sessions Judge called upon the witness to show cause at once why he shall not be summarily dealt with under Section 480, Cr. P. C. for having committed an offence punishable under Section 179 I. P. C. In the presence of the court the appellant made statement, then asked ^^mYVksikYVk gkavNs vksVk vkeks cq>r ikjh uh-** which shows that he had got confused and did not understand the questions put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. This explanation of the appellant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found to be unsatisfactory and he also found the appellant to be guilty of contempt and under Section 480 Cri. P. C. The punishment was imposed in these words :

(3.) Immediately thereafter, an application was made by the present appellant before the learned Additional Sessions Judge praying for appeal under Section 426(2A) Cr. P. C. and also made an application under Section 484 Cr. P. C. both of which applications were rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.