BAMADEV MISRA Vs. D C DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an Advocate of the Puri Bar, seeks to quash a complaint laid against him by a trying Magistrate before the Sub -divisional Magistrate of Puri for his prosecution under Section 228, Indian Penal Code read with Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. The facts necessary for appreciating the point raised by Mr. Sahu on his behalf before me may thus be stated. G. R. Case No. 1446 of 1969 was being tried in the Court of Sri D. C. Das, Magistrate, First Class (Judicial) at Puri. The petitioner was the advocate for the accused and the prosecution was being handled by the Court Sub -Inspector one Mr. Akshay Kumar Patnaik. On 7.6.1971, at the close of the day when the cross -examination of a prosecution witness was going on, the Court Sub -Inspector suddenly stood up and interrupted the cross -examination because he could not follow a question put to the witness and disturbed the petitioner by drawing the attention of the Court that the petitioner was not entitled to put such a question. Thereupon the petitioner stated to the Court Sub -Inspector that he was not obviously hearing the cross -examination and suggested that he would put some oil into his ear. In the petition before me it has been stated that the statement was made more out of joke than indignation and it was certainly not addressed to the Court. It was an aside meant for the prosecuting Sub -Inspector. Without realising in what spirit the petitioner had made the statement the Court Sub -Inspector flared up and retorted back to the petitioner saying that it was nonsense and that he was a bastard. The petitioner was not prepared to receive such a retort because he could never realise that the Court Sub -Inspector in the presence of a Magistrate sitting as a court could retort with such words. The petitioner states that he was shocked ctor. Without realising in what spirit the petitioner had made the statement the Court Sub -Inspector flared up and retorted back to the petitioner saying that it was nonsense and that he was a bastard. The petitioner was not prepared to receive such a retort because he could never realise that the Court Sub -Inspector in the presence of a Magistrate sitting as a court could retort with such words. The petitioner states that he was shocked to find the indifference of the Magistrate and when placed in such a disgusting situation he threw his spectacles on the table which by accident struck somewhere near the eye -brow of the Court Sub -Inspector who was sitting close to him as the prosecutor's counsel. The Magistrate directed the petitioner to leave the court room. Accordingly the petitioner went out. A little later that evening the Court Sub -Inspector lodged F. I. R. at the police station. The petitioner on the next day complained in the Court against the Court Sub -Inspector alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 500 and 504, Indian Penal Code. On the next day, that is, 8.6.1971 the Magistrate sent for the petitioner through his Bench Clerk, drew up a formal proceeding for contempt of Court under Section 228, Indian Penal Code and took down a statement from the petitioner and directed him thereafter to appear before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate. To ensure the appearance of the petitioner a personal recognition bond was taken from him. It is at this stage that the petitioner came before this Court to quash the proceeding initiated by the trying Magistrate. The order -sheet of the proceeding of 7.6.1971 in the G. R. Case has been filed before me as also the order -sheet of 8.6.1971 to bear out the allegations made in the petition. The order dated 10.6.1971 made by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate of Puri shows that he has taken cognisance of an offence under Section 228, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

(2.) MR . Sahu contends that the learned Magistrate was somewhat touchy and in case he thought that what happened on 7.6.1971 was contemptuous and he was meant to be affected by the remarks of the petitioner, action should have been taken then and there to meet the situation. Obviously the learned Magistrate never thought that the remarks of the petitioner were meant for the Magistrate. In the setting the remarks were made they must necessarily have been addressed to the Court Sub -Inspector.