BISHNU MOHAN SENAPATI Vs. HARIHAR MALLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER calls in question legality and propriety of a notice styled as a summon in case of contempt under section 330 Cr. P.C. issued by the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Sundargarh. Record of the connected case (Misc. Case No.1 of 1991) reveals that the action taken by the Executive Magistrate is thoroughly misconceived. Basis of the notice, as appears from the order dated 13.5.1991 is that while the Executive Magistrate was going on 9.5.1991, at 11.30 a.m. in a rickshaw, the present petitioner who was Headmaster at a school in Bhadrak obstructed him, misbehaved with him and shouted at him. This, according to the Executive Magistrate, constituted obstruction and misbehaviour, as a result of which he could not proceed to Sundargarh to perform his duties as an Executive Magistrate. This was construed to be (a) prevention of the Executive Magistrate in the matter of performance of his duties, and (b) willful contempt. The order sheet shows that action was taken under section 345 of the Code or Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, TCr. P.C.T). It further appears that the petitioner was required to show cause as to why he shall not be called upon to (a) pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, (b) shall not be sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year, and (c) as to why the matter shall not be referred to this court for higher punishment. Copy of the notice which was served on the petitioner shows that the petitioner was required to appear on 18.6.1991 and to show cause as to why he shall not be visited with fine of Rs. 200/-, and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The order sheet reveals that on 18.6.199 1 the matter was directed to be placed on 12.7.1991. The record does not contain the copy of the notice which was issued to the petitioner, but only the letter of the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle, Bhadrak, regarding the service of notice on the petitioner is there. Neither section 330 Cr. P.C. (as indicated in the notice) nor section 345 Cr. P.C. (as indicated in the order dated 13.5.1991) has any application to the facts to the case. Former relates to the procedure relating to release of lunatic pending investigation or trial, while latter relates to procedure in certain cases of contempt. Section 345 Cr. P.C. provides that when an offence as described in section 175, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, TI.P.C.) is committed in the view of presence of any civil, criminal or revenue court, the court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may, at any time before the rising of the court on the same day, take cognizance of the offence and, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished under the concerned section, sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, and in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid. Obviously there is no question of imposing a simple imprisonment unless it is default sentence. Section 345, Cr. P.C. confers special powers on all courts (civil, criminal or revenue) to deal summarily with five kinds of contempt which tend to lower dignity or authority of the court, or to interfere with the course of justice, committed by any person in the face of the court. As the procedure under the section is summary in nature, sub-sections (2) and (3) provide certain safeguards. The requirements are to record (a) the facts of the offence, (b) the answer of the offender to the charge if any, and (c) the finding and sentence. If the offence is under section 228, I.P.C., the record must also show the nature and stage of the interruption or insult attributed to the accused. The principal ingredient of the offence is intentional insult or interruption. The same must have been caused when the court was doing judicial work. The power given by section 345 (1), Cr. P.C. does not extend to contempt committed outside the court but only to offences committed in the presence of the court, or in its precincts or office. Section 178, I.P.C. relates to refusing oath or affirmation when duly required by public servant to make it, section 175, I.P.C. relates omission to produce document to public servant by person legally bound to produce it, section 179, I.P.C. relates to refusal to answer public servant authorised to question, section 180, I.P.C. relates to refusal to sign statement, while section 228, I.P.C. deals with intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial Proceeding. The allegations even if accepted at their face value, do not relate to any of the offences as stated above. Further there is no question of petitioner being sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year as indicated in order dated 13.5.1991. The proceeding is, therefore, thoroughly misconceived and is quashed. The Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of. Petition allowed.