P.N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh Under Sec. 417(1) Code of Criminal Procedure against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge Orai dated 7 -9 -1968 acquitting the accused for an offence Under Sec. 480 Code of Criminal Procedure and setting aside the sentence of a fine of Rs. 100/ - imposed upon him by the trial court.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Sri Bramha Deo was both the SDM as well as the SDO Orai. On 13 -8 -1968 he was taking up Case No. 38 Gram Sabha v/s. Mori Lal and Ors. Under Sec. 198 of the UP ZA and LR Act. The statement of Piarey Lal son of Ram Deen, who was the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha was recorded and he was also cross -examined on behalf of the opposite party. While this case was proceeding Sri Bramha Deo asked Piarey Lal as to how many Farzi Pattas had been executed in his Gaon Sabha. Piarey Lal replied "Yeh Farzi Pattay hazoor nay hi karwayay hain." Sri Bramha Deo considered the uttering of these words to be an intentional insult amounting to contempt of his court. As such he drew up proceedings Under Sec. 480 Code of Criminal Procedure against opposite party Piarey Lal. He examined Piarey Lal by putting the following question to him: Kya turn nay ijlas kay poochnay per ki is gaon mein kitnay Farzi pattay huway hain, yeh kaha ki yeh farzi Pattay hazoor nay hi karwayay hain. The reply of Piarey Lal to the aforesaid question was: Ji han. This answer in the opinion of Sri Bramha Dao was an admission of the deliberate insult hurled at the Presiding Officer in the earlier judicial proceedings by attributing the execution of the Farzi Pattas to the Presiding Officer. The uttering of these words in the opinion of the trial court undermined the prestige of the Court and was a contempt of a grave nature. Sri Bramha Deo was of opinion that the Contemner being a Pradhan, who fully understood the implications of his insulting utterances, convicted him Under Sec. 480 Code of Criminal Procedure and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/ -. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The aforesaid order was passed on 13 -8 -1968.
(3.) Piarey Lal filed Cr. A. No. 141 of 1968 in the Court of the Sessions Judge Orai. Two main points which found favour with the lower appellate court were as follows: The first point argued was that the proceedings out of which the appeal had arisen "was taken up by the SDM Orai and that the alleged insult had been offered to the SDO Orai, who had been taking up a case Under Sec. 198 of the UP ZA and LR Act." It was pointed out that Under Sec. 480 Code of Criminal Procedure any civil, criminal or revenue court before whom an offence Under Sec. 228 IPC had been committed under which Sec. the present case would fall could take cognizance of such offence before the rising of the court and sentence the offender to a fine not exceeding Rs. 200/ -. It was urged that if the SDO Orai had been insulted he could only take action in that very capacity. He could not sic as SDM to take cognizance of this case. The other point stressed before the lower appellate court was that there was nothing to suggest that the alleged court question had actually been put to Piarey Lal during the proceedings Under Sec. 198 of the ZA and LR Act. It was urged that it was not precisely known at which particular stage of the judicial proceeding the alleged insult was offered to him. Both the above contentions were accepted by the Sessions Judge Orai who acquitted the accused opposite party of the offence Under Sec. 480 Code of Criminal Procedure. In appeal before us three contentions have been raised and we shall deal with each one of these submissions.;