GAURI SHANKAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This proceeding has been started for contempt of an order of this Court passed In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1427 of 1971. This proceeding was started at the instance of Gauri Shankar Jain, petitioner No. 2 in that case, against the alleged contemner. Sheo Kumar Mishra. Officer in. charge of Rajmahal Police Station, in the district of Santhal Parstanas. Some facts may be briefly stated in order to appreciate the point at issue.

(2.) It Is said that Gauri Shanker Jain (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") and other members of his family had taken a mining lease and were working the mine near Rajmahal. It is further alleged that by working this mine they were likely to damage some temple at Kanhaiya Asthan stand. 5kg on the upper surface of the land and so there was some agitation by the public. The Resident Magistrate that is. the Sub. divisional Magistrate, who is designated as such at Rajmahal) visited the spot on 10th June. 1971. and there he set up one Khublal Mandal to lodge a first information report before the Police under Sections 295, 297, 336 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. This first information was lodged at 16.15 hours. It is further said on behalf of the petitioner that the Resident Magistrate was very much annoyed with the petitioner's family and so on that very date he issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner as also against some other persons named in the first Information report. It may be mentioned that In the month of June there was morning sitting of the Courts. Any way, these warrants of arrest Were taken to the petitioner and two other members of his family on the next day at about 8.30 a. m. The petitioner and the other two members of his family were not then present in the house, and simultaneously processes under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were executed. Annexure "4" to Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1427 of 1971 shows that for one hour, that is, from 8.30 to 9.30 a. m. the house of the petitioner was searched. On 12th June. 1971, the officer. in. charge of Raimahal P.S. there in after referred to as the Officer in charge seized many movables, such as sugar, personal effects and other articles, and took them to the police. station.

(3.) In the whole history of this case, two things prominently strike me. The first is that there was absolutely no justification for the issue of warrants of arrest as well as processes under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 87 is resorted to In case of absconders. If a person is found to be absconding or avoiding processes of the Court then such a drastic step has to be taken. If a Police. Officer goes to the house and does not find the occupant there it cannot necessarily be said that that man was absconding. "Abscond. big" does not mean absence on one day, but it means remaining out for some days. Any way. to me it appears to be a case of vindictiveness on the part of the Resident Magistrate as well as the officer-in-charge. It is to be further noted that on the 10th June, 1971 it could not be said that none of the three ~ accused persons would be met at their house and perhaps, in anticipation the processes had been signed and issued.