INDERJIT SINGH Vs. RAJ KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Panchayat of village Jamitgarh was on February 8, 1965, with Inderjit Singh Sarpanch presiding and quorum complete, seized of a case against Sarwan Singh Respondent 2 under Section 21 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (Punjab Act 4 of 1958), for encroachment on a thoroughfare, and when they announced their decision in the case, Respondent 2 started abusing them and throwing challenges that he would see how and who was going to make him vacate the land with him. The Panchayat tried to explain the matter to him and to make him understand what the position was, but he even then abused them. In this manner Respondent 2 interrupted the proceedings of the Panchayat and threw mud on the members thus insulting them.

(2.) Section 228 of the Penal Code provides- Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. Section 13 of Punjab Act 4 of 1958 reads 79 (1). The provisions of Sections 480 to 482 of the Criminal P. C., 1898 shall apply to judicial proceedings under this Act: Provided that, the fine imposed for contempt of Court shall not exceed twenty-five rupees. (2). The provisions of Sections 512, 517 and 522 of the Criminal P. C., 1898, shall apply to criminal proceedings before a Panchayat, and if any order made by a Panchayat in relation to Sections 517 and 522 of the Criminal P. C., 1898, is not complied with, the panchayat shall forward the same to the nearest magistrate who shall proceed to execute it as if it were an order passed by himself. Sections 480 and 481 of the Criminal P. C., are 480. (1) When any such offence as is described in Section 175, Section 178, Section 179; Section 180, or Section 228 of the Penal Code is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody; and at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day may, if it thinks fit, take cognizance of the offence and sentence the off(sic) to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one mouth, unless such fine be sooner paid. * * 481. (1) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender, as well as the finding and sentence. (2) If the offence is under Section 228 of the Penal Code, the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting and the nature of the interruption or insult. So Sections 480 and 481, [Criminal P. C. apply to judicial proceedings before a Panchayat under Punjab Act 4 of 1958, but by proviso to Sub-section (1 of Section 79 of this Act the maximum amount of fine is limited to Rs. 25/-. Where an offence tinder Section 223 of the Penal Code is committed in the view or presence of a Court, it may cause the offender to be detained in custody and then proceed against him in accordance with Section 480 and the following Section 431 of the Criminal P. C.

(3.) The resolution, Annexnre A, to the petition of the Sarpanch-petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution, gives in detail the facts as have been stated above. After the Panchayat had decided the case against respondent 2, the latter abused them. When the Panchayat tried to make him understand the matter, he did not allow them to proceed bat further abused them. Not only that he threw mud on the members of the Panchayat also. So the Panchayat convicted respondent 2 for the offence of Contempt of Court under Section 228 of the Penal Code, proceeding under S 79 of Punjab Act 4 of 1958 and Sections 480 and 431 of the Criminal P. C., and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 26/-. Against that respondent 2 made an application to the District Magistrate under Section 51 of Punjab Act 4 of 1953. which was heard and disposed of by Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, respondent 1, on August 27, 1965. The learned Magistrate set aside the conviction and sentence of respondent 2 on the ground that 'no notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner (respondent 2) before the fine was imposed.'