COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. CONSTABLE SATBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents Constable Satbir Singh, Sub-Inspector Ram Phal and Shri S.D. Prashar have appeared in this Court in answer to a notice to show-cause why they should not be convicted and punished for contempt of Court. To appreciate the points involved, it will be necessary to set out the facts giving rise to these proceedings in some detail.

(2.) ON 19.3.1986, Shri Arun Maitri who was then posted as Judicial Magistrate First Class at Palwal recorded the statement of Sham Lal, a resident of village Mitrol, as PW 5 in case State v. Moti Lal and others (FIR No. 117 dated 15.8.1984 registered at Police Station Sadar, Palwal, under sections 332/353/379/186/34 Indian Penal Code) Sham Lal having gone hostile, refused to support the prosecution case. Shri S.D. Prashar, Assistant District Attorney requested the Court to initiate proceedings against Sham Lal PW under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. Since Shri S.D. Prashar made an oral request, the Magistrate did not pass any order and directed him to make an application in writing which may be decided at the proper stage. It is alleged that Shri S.D. Prashar never made any application for the prosecution of Sham Lal on that day. He, however, directed the Naib Court Constable Satbir Singh of Police Station Sadar, Palwal to take the witness in custody. To be precise the words used by him were, "GAWAH KO BITHA LO". Sham Lal sat down for some time outside the Court room and then went outside the Court complex. It is said that when the witness was waiting for the bus, Constable Satbir Singh came there and asked him to accompany him to the Police Station Sadar, Palwal, as he was wanted by Sub-Inspector Ram Phal. Sham Lal accompanied Constable Satbir Singh to the said Police Station followed by Moti Lal and his wife Smt. Shanti Devi, Sham Lal, Moti Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi were beaten up in the Police Station by Constable Satbir Singh and Sub-Inspector Ram Phal. In the meantime, Rameshwar and Smt. Shanti Devi presented an application before J.V. Gupta, J. who was then on inspection tour of the Judicial Courts at Palwal. The learned Judge directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to produce Sham Lal and Moti Lal before him in the PWD. Rest House, Palwal. They were accordingly brought to the Rest House by the Deputy Superintendent of Police at about 4.30 P.M. Since the witnesses had visible injuries on their persons, the learned Judge directed them to be medically examined Dr. Anil Kumar Malik CW 5 examined Moti Lal, Sham Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi on 19.3.1986 at about 6.55 P.M. and found 9 simple injuries on the person of Moti Lal, two simple injuries on the person of Sham Lal and two simple injuries on the person of Smt. Shanti Devi as detailed in the medico-legal reports Exs. C. 10, C. 11 and C. 12 respectively. The Doctor also examined Constable Satbir Singh on the same day at 6.35 P.M. and found 5 simple injuries on her person as detailed in the medico-legal report Ex. R. 4. It is alleged that Constable Satbir Singh also lodged the First Information Report No. 56 dated 19.3.1980 at Police Station City, Palwal, against Sham Lal and Moti Lal at 4.45 pm. For the offences under Sections 332/353/186/34, Indian Penal Code. On the direction given by J.V. Gupta, J. Shri Virender Singh who was then posted as Sub Divisional Judicial magistrate at Palwal conducted enquiry into the incident and submitted his report, Ex. C. 9 on 29.3.1986. The learned Judge found a prima facie case against the respondents while holding that besides interfering in the administration of justice they had tried to interfere in the due courts of judicial proceedings which were being held by Shri Arun Mittal, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palwal. It was in these circumstances that this Court issued notice of contempt upon the respondents.

(3.) IT is an admitted fact that on 19.2.1986, the statement of Sham Lal PW in case State v. Moti Lal and others was recorded in the Court of Shri Arun Maitri, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palwal and the said witness having gone hostile. Shri. S.D. Prashar, Assistant District Attorney requested the Court to launch proceedings against him under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, as according to him he had made a false statement. The Court, however, directed him (Shri S.D. Prashar) to make an application in writing so that the same may be decided at the proper stage.