Decided on February 02,1968

STATE Appellant
NAND KISHORE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



- (1.)CIVIL Suit No. 206 of 1957, Balaknath v. Parbhati Nath and Ors. had been pending in the Court of learned "munsiff-Magistrate, Thana Gazi, District Alwar. In that case Shri N. K. Sharma, Advocate, had been engaged by the plaintiff Balak Nath. On April 16, 1964, the defendant Parbhati Nath had been examined. In the course of his cross-examination, a transfer application had been moved before the trial Court on behalf of the plaintiff. Consequently, the case had been adjourned for about a month. That day Shri Nand Kishore, Advocate, is alleged to have caused interruption in the judicial proceeding and offered insult to the Presiding Officer of the Court Shri D. C. Hagela. He is alleged to have remarked that he would move, either personally or through his clients, transfer applications in each and every case and that tie would see the Presiding Officer. He is also alleged to have made certain gestures with his hands and face and a threatening voice at the presiding officer. Soon after the said officer drew ud proceeding under Section 480, Criminal P. C. He framed the follow-charges: I. D. C. Hagela, Munsiff-Magistrate F. C. , Thangazi, hereby charge you Shri Nand Kishore Sharma Advocate as follows; that you today viz. , the 16th day of April, 1964, at 11. 30 A. M. , intentionally offered insult and also caused interruption to me by threatening that in each and every case you will now either personally or through your clients go on moving the transfer applications and that you will see me and you made such gestures with hand and face and with a threatening noise that amounted to interruption and insult while I was sitting in a judicial proceeding namely Balak Nath v. Parbati Nath C. S. No. 206 of 1957 and thereby committed an offence under Section 228, I. P. C. and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge. To the above charge the Advocate, Shri Nand Kishore Sharma, gave the following reply: That no occasion arose for drawing the contempt of Court proceeding, that he was called to hear the judgment in Hanuman Sahai and Jagannath and that he has heard the judgment and that he has done nothing. It may also be noted here that Shri Sharma refused to sign the charge-sheet below his reply. Eventually the said Magistrate held Shri Sharma guilty under Section 228, I. P. C. and imposed on him a fine of Rs. 200, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. On an appeal, learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, held that the trial Court did mot write in its judgment, in accordance with Section 481 (2), Criminal P. C. the nature and the stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court was interrupted. The first appellate Court further held that there was no evidence at all against the accused regarding his using insulting language or making threatening gestures except the impression of the presiding officer himself and such an impression was not enough to convict the accused so as to attract the provisions of Section 228, I. P. C. On these grounds, learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused Shri Nand Kishore of the offence under Section 228, I. P. C.
(2.)DISSATISFIED with the above verdict, the State Government has filed the present appeal. The contention of learned Deputy Government Advocate is that it has been fully brought home that the presiding officer of the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate, Thana Gazi, Shri D. C. Hagela, was offered insult at the time when he was bilsy at a certain stage of the judicial proceeding in connection with the case, Balak Nath v. Parbhati Nath, Civil Suit No. 206 of 1957. and, therefore, the appellate Court went wrong in acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 228, I. P. C. In support of his contention he mainly relied on Vijai Rao v. State AIR 1953 Hyd 285.
(3.)SECTION 481 (2), Cr. P. C. is in the terms following: If the offence is under Section 228 of the Indian 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. There is no ambiguity in the above provision. It shows that where the offender is punishable for an offence under Section 228, Indian Penal Code, the record must show- (a) the nature and the stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and (b) the nature of the interruption or the insult. In the present case it is not possible from the record to ascertain exactly the nature and the stage of the judicial proceeding. The order passed by Shri D. C. Hagela, dated April 16, 1964, does not show it. It is no doubt stated therein that the accused Shri Nand Kishore Sharma insulted and interrupted the Court when the presiding officer was discharging his duties in judicial proceedings, but it omits to mention what type of that judicial proceeding was and what was the stage thereof. There is also no mention regarding this fact in the order-sheet in the Civil Suit No. 206 of 1957, dated April 16, 1964. The Munsiff-Magistrate ought to have placed on record definite informations as to whether depositions were being taken of arguments were being heard or other judicial proceedings were being carried on and so on. But he failed to do so. The omission of such an information is fatal to the order of conviction, since the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 481, Criminal P. C. are mandatory.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.