THE STATE Vs. S. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings have arisen on a petition of the Advocate General and notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why he be not dealt with for contempt of the Court of S. Charan Singh Tiwana, Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla. Fourteen persons were alleged to have participated in the commission of various offences including one under Section 307/149, Penal Code. After investigation twelve out of them had been put up for trial and the remaining two were stated to be fugitives from justice. An application for bail was made on behalf of the accused and it came up before the Magistrate on 22 -11 -1951; but no orders on it could be passed as the Prosecuting Inspector, who had been specially deputed to conduct the case on behalf of the state, was not present. On the next date, viz., 28 -11 -51 the two absconding accused Hira Singh and Tek Singh were also present, as they had been apprehended and forwarded with supplementary challans. The Presiding Officer, S. Charan Singh Tiwana, had not yet started court work and was dictating a letter to the District Judge when S. Gurdial Singh Dhillon, who is a retired Inspector General of Police of the erstwhile Patiala State, and is, at present, a, Member of the Pepsu Legislative Assembly, walked up to him and took his seat on the dais. He requested the Magistrate to release Kartar Singh, one of the accused, on bail; as he was his friend. He also said that if that accused was not released that day his (respondent's) election programme would be upset and that he would stand surety for him even though the amount of bail was to be Rs. 5000.

(2.) WHAT now remains to be considered is whether any punishment be imposed on the contemner inspite of his unconditional apology. In an apology an expression of the sense of remorse and regret for the objectionable act amounting to an offence is inherent. Section 3, Patiala Contempt of Courts Act under which the proceedings were s taken also permits acceptance of an apology if it is to the satisfaction of the Court. An apology sincerely expressed and unreservedly, and unconditionally tendered may, under proper circumstances, be accepted even where the contempt is of a grave type; for, it invariably extenuates the gravity of the offence and a lenient view of the act of the contemner is warranted. It is also equally clear that an apology is not a universal ready panacea for any sort of contempt committed and the contemner in an appropriate case of high contempt may be punished inspite of his apology however abjectly and genuinely offered. In the present case we are satisfied that the apology has proceeded from a repentant mind and the respondent has abundantly realised his blunder. His case will, we hope, serve as an eye opener and a warning to others.