RAJASTHAN BAR COUNCIL Vs. NATHURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a contempt of Court matter set in motion by the Secretary, Rajasthan Bar Council, against two Sub-Inspectors of Police Nathuram and Harnamsingh in relation to the arrest of Shri Fateh Chand Kothari, an advocate of this Court, practising at Churu.

(2.) The material facts which have culminated in the present proceedings are briefly these. Shri Kothari was briefed by one Sagarmal in a complaint filed by him under Sections 452 and 506, I.P.C. against his son-in-law Maniram and another person Manoharlal (obviously a friend of Maniram) in the Court of the Extra Magistrate, First Class, Churu, on 22-7-1953. The allegations made by Sagarmal were that his daughter Mt. Lilawati was being treated by her husband Maniram with great cruelty and so she had come to her father's house, that Maniram and Manoharlal had come over to Churu about four days ago and met Sagarmal on the night of the 21st July and called upon him to send Mt. Lilawati with them else they threatened that they would take her away by force and cut her nose and then leave her. It was also mentioned in the complaint that Manoharlal had stated at the meeting that "the Thanedar of Churu" was his friend and that it would not be difficult for them to implicate Sagarmal and his daughter falsely. Sagarmal further complained that the Thanedar accompanied by two or three persons of Churu had come to his house on the 20th July and had asked the latter to send his daughter away with Maniram whereupon Sagarmal requested the Thanedar to find out from the girl herself whether she was willing to go but she replied to him that she would not. The suggestion is that this complaint had considerably annoyed Sub-Inspector Nathuram who was the station officer of the Churu thana. Harnamsingh was the second officer. It is said that on coming to know of the allegations made against him (though not by name) in his complaint by Sagarmal, Sub-Inspector Nathuram went to Shri Kothari and wanted him to withdraw from the case. Shri Kothari did not agree. It then transpired that on 26-7-1953, at 10 P.M. Maniram lodged a report in the thana against five persons including Mt. Lilawati, Sagarmal and also Shri Kothari under Sections 403, 411 and 109, I.P.C. The allegations made in this report briefly were that Maniram had come to Churu to take back his Wife but that his father-inlaw Sagarmal and his wife had refused to send Mt. Lilawati with him and that Shri Kothari (who was counsel for Sagarmal) was at the back of the refusal. Maniram further stated that when his wife Mt. Lilawati came to Churu, she had brought certain ornaments of his mother (of course with his own permission) with her but she had declined to return those ornaments and that in doing so she was being instigated by Shri Kothari, among others. On the aforesaid report a case was registered by Sub-Inspector Nathuram against Shri Kothari and Sagarmal (and three other persons) and a warrant of arrest was issued by Nathuram for the arrest of Shri Kothari on 28-7-1953, and made over to the second officer Harnamsingh for execution, at about 10 or 11 A. M. It is alleged that Shri Kothari was in the Court of Shri Goyal, at about 1 P. M. and was appearing on behalf of the accused in Abdul Rehman v. Kalyan Singh pending in that court. Mr. Keshoprasad Gupta Advocate was counsel for the complainant in that case. Some two or three witnesses had been examined in chief and then crass-examined by Shri Kothari. The examination-in-chief of another witness had begun. It appears that Shri Kothari then happened to look outside towards -the door of the court-room (it is said that he wanted to spit) when Harnamsingh, who was in plain clothes and whom Shri Kothari did not know from before, beckoned to him and said that he wanted to consult him whereupon Shri Kothari told Harnamsingh that he was engaged in a case and that Harnamsingh might see him later. But it is said that Harnamsingh immediately pushed Shri Kothari below the verandah of the Court. Thereafter Harnamsingh hand-cuffed Shri Kothari without showing him the order for his arrest. The case of the petitioner is that both Nathuram and Harnamsingh had come to the Court of the Extra 1st Class Magistrate Mr. Goyal and they were accompanied by a few constables, and that Harnamsingh after hand-cuffing Shri Kothari made over the Key of the hand-cuffs to Nathuram. Shri Kothari had to cross-examine the prosecution witness who had been examined-in-chief by Shri Keshoprasad. It was immediately reported to Shri Goyal, the Magistrate, that Shri Kothari had been arrested by the police. It is said that Shri Goyal asked Shri Keshoprasad first and then Ganpat, Court-peon, to ask the police-men to produce Shri Kothari before him but Sub-Inspector Harnamsingh declined to do so, and Shri Kothari was taken away hand-cuffed to the police thana through the Bazar. It appears that the Magistrate soon after this incident sent a report to the District Magistrate, Churu that Shri Kothari had been arrested by Sub-Inspector Harnamsingh in the court precincts while he was conducting a case on behalf of the accused and without his orders. The Magistrate also reported that Harnamsingh had failed to produce Shri Kothari when ordered to do so and that such conduct amounted to contempt of Court. Shri Keshoprasad who was also president of the Bar Association, Churu, filed a report before Shri Goyal that the policemen should be hauled up for contempt of Court in arresting Shri Kothari although that application has not been placed before us. The Magistrate Shri Goyal testifies to such an application having been presented to him but he was unable to recollect where he had filed it.

(3.) The defence of Sub-Inspector Nathuram is that a case against Shri Kothari was registered on the report of Maniram and that a warrant of arrest had been issued by him against Shri Kothari but he had done so in the normal course and honest discharge of his duty as a station officer and that in doing so he was not actuated by any extraneous motives whatsoever. This respondent, however, denied his presence in or near the court-room of the Magistrate Shri Goyal at the time of the arrest of Shri Kothari. He also denied that he had any knowledge of the complaint filed by Sagarmal in Court on 22-7-1953, or of the fact that Shri Kothari was Sagarmal's counsel in that case, or that he had ever contacted Shri Kothari to withdraw from Sagarmal's complaint. Nathuram's case further is that he did not know and could not have known that Shri Kothari's arrest would be effected "in the vicinity of the court-room or just after he had come out of the court precincts after disposing of his professional work".