KAMALESH BHADURI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application arises out of a somewhat unfortunate proceeding in the Court of Mr. U.N. Singh, Subordinate Judge, on 5-6-1.94-6. It appears that during the hearing of the Civil suit on the morning of that day the lawyers for the plaintiff and the Court were in disagreement about various matters which it is unnecessary to detail, and about which I do not propose to express any opinion as there is also a proceeding under the Legal Practitioners Act pending against the pleaders concerned. Eventually, after the Court had risen for the day, a notice was served on one of the pleaders for the plaintiff, namely, the present petitioner Babu Kamalesh Bhaduri, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court and for disobeying an order of the Court. The petitioner showed cause, and the Subordinate Judge proceeded to examine a number of witnesses. As the incident or incidents which led the Judge to take this action were all matters which occurred in the presence of the Court, it is difficult to understand why it was necessary to waste so much public time in recording the statements of witnesses. However, that is what, the Court did, and on 21 June, the petitioner applied for an adjournment, with the result that the next hearing of the matter was fixed for 16 July.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved this Court to quash the proceedings. The procedaro adopted by the Court is somewhat unusual; the case of acts amounting to an offence under Section 228, Indian Penal Code, Section 480, Criminal P.C., empowers the Court concerned to detain the offender in custody and at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day to take cognizance of the offender and sentence him, to pay a fine not exceeding. Rs. 200. If the Court considers that such a fine is inadequate in the circumstances of the case, Article 482 authorises the Court to record the facts and the statement of the offender, and forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same That is the normal procedure in the case of a contempt of Court committed in the presence of the Court.

(3.) Section 228, Indian Penal Code, however, is one of the offences mentioned in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), of Section 195 of the Code, and is, therefore, as offence to which Section 476 applies Section 476 empowers the Court, in which or in relation to the proceedings of which an offence mentioned in Clause (b) and (c) of Sub- section (1) of Section 195 has been committed, to make a preliminary enquiry if it considers this to be desirable, and thereafter to make a complaint in writing and to forward the; complaint to a Magistrate, of the first class having jurisdiction. In forwarding-the record to this Court the Subordinate Judge sent what he calls a report, in the course of which he said that he did not think it expedient himself to deal with Babu Kamatefth Bhadari by starting proceedings under Section 480, Criminal P.C., and punishing him under Section 228, Indian Penal Code, but that he thought it more proper to start the present proceedings against him with a view to reporting his conduct to the District Judge and the High Court for taking proper action against him. Although, therefore, the learned Judge started by serving a. notice on the petitioner to show cause "why he should not be committed for contempt, he, according to his own report, had no intention of proceeding in either of the ways contemplated by the Code for dealing with a contempt committed in the presence of the Court as he himself says he did not think it a case in which he should proceed under Section 480, and it follows that Section 482 was also inapplicable Obviously the Subordinate Judge had no intention of proceeding under Section 476 for, if that had been his intention," he must have contemplated making a complaint to a Magistrate of the first class, but, as he himself says, his intention was to make a report to the District Judge or to the High Court. It was not in, his contemplation to make a complaint to a Magistrate of the first class. The only view that I can take of his proceedings in recording evidence is that he intended this evidence to form a part of his report to the District Judge for the purpose of the proceedings tinder the Legal Practitioners Act which he has invited the District Judge to initiate.