CHET RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chet Ram, alias Chattru, was convicted by the learned Magistrate first class Rampur for an offence punishable under Section 228, Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20/-(and not Rs. 200/-, as erroneously stated by the learned Sessions Judge), or fifteen days simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine. He went up in revision and the learned Sessions Judge has made a reference to this Court under Section 438, Criminal P. C., with the recommendation that the sentence be reversed. The petitioner is said to have insulted Sri Hari Das, one of the three members of the Gaura Panchayat, and caused interruption to the Panthayat while it was functioning as a Court on 16th Sawan 2009 B.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge has made the aforesaid recommendation on the grounds that the Magistrate took cognizance of the case without a proper complaint, that the complaint should have been made by the Panchayat as a whole and not by only one of its members and that even on merits no case had been established against the petitioner. The first ground is well-founded and it is not necessary to go into the other two. The learned acting Government Advocate has not opposed the reference.

(3.) Now, in the case of a contempt committed coram judice and punishable under Section 228, Penal Code, there are two courses open to the Court: (1) it may itself take cognizance of the offence before the rising of the Court on the same day and sentence the offender under Section 480, Criminal P. C., in which case only a fine not exceeding two hundred rupees can be imposed, or, if it considers that the offender be imprisoned otherwise than in default of payment of fine, or that a fine exceeding Rs. 200/-should be imposed upon him, it may forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same under Section 482, or (2) it may proceed under Section 476 of the Code and make a complaint to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction. If the Court in respect of which the offence has been committed does not itself take cognizance of the offence under the first alternative, cognizance of the offence by a Magistrate who proceeds to try the offender is barred by Section 195, Criminal P. C., except on the complaint in writing of the said Court under Section 476 or of some other Court to which it is subordinate under Section 476B.