D.N.Jha - (1.) THIS petition under section 482 CrPG is directed against the order dated 5-2-1985 passed by the Ilnd Addl. Sessions Judge, Gonda, in Sessions Trial No. 434 of 1983, State v. Kripa Ram.
(2.) SWATANTRA Kumar Audhaulia applicant is an Advocate practising in the district courts at Gonda, He is appearing in Sessions Trial No. 434 of 1983, State v. Kripa Ram and is representing accused Kunney. On 5-2-85 the statement of Kunney under section 313 CrPC was recorded The last question put to accused Kunney is reproduced hereunder : "Aur Kuchh Kehna Hai ? " The reply of the accused in full is also quoted hereunder :- Ram Gopal Singh, Akbar Ali Gaon men khullam khulla kahte hain ki Judge saheb (yani app Sessions Judge) ko mila liya hai aur ab saja karvai beghair nahin chhoren ge. " The learned Sessions Judge asked another question which is quoted as under :- " Un gaon walon ka naam batao ge jinse Ram Gopal aur Akbar Ali ne aisa khullam khulla kaha ? " Learned counsel Sri SWATANTRA Kumar objected to the court question on the ground that it amounted to cross examination of the accused and was legally not permissible. Since Sri SWATANTRA Kumar was probably obstructing the functioning of the Court hence proceedings were drawn and he was fined Rs. 2000/- which was to be paid till the rising of the Court and in default to undergo three days imprisonment. It is short order and hence it is bening mentioned in verbatim :- " It is clear contempt and against the decorum of the Court. Sri SWATANTRA Kumar is hereby fined to pay an amount of Rs., 2000/-. In the event of default he shall undergo imprisonment for three days. He shall be taken into custody in default of fine upto the rising of the court. " This order seems to have led to some commotion in the district courts and intervention of the District Judge was also sought. Time was allowed for redress with liberty to approach the Court on an application of Sri Swatantra Kumar for depositing the fine. It is in these circumstances that this petition is before this Court. On the motion being presented before this Court comments were called for from the learned Court.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. A long reply has been received from the trial court throwing light on the history and background relating to the aforesaid sessions trtal. It transpires from the record that from 15-2-84 as many as 22 applications were moved in the case for some purpose or the other. It appears that all out effort was being made on behalf of to accused persons who were on bail to see that the case was not heard by the court concerned. Such things often happen in cases that are being dried by courts which are well known for recording conviction. It is indeed becoming difficult now a days for a fair and honest officer to carry on his work. Lawyers have been acting in utter disregard of the fact that huge arrears of cases are pending in each court. It is a high time that lawyers should become conscious of the fact that they not only owe allegiance to their clients but also are duty bound to assist the court in dispensing justice efficaciously. A perusal of the statement made by Kunney leaves no doubt that it was highly contemptuous and scrupulous and in my opinion the learned lawyer was also not justified in raising the objection because it was not in the form of a cross-examination. Be that as it may, the Judges while exercising jurisdiction in such matters should not be hyper-sensitive where distortions and criticisms over step limits but it is necessary to deflate vulgar denunciation by dignified bearing, condescending indifference and repudiation by judicial rectitude. It is unfortunate that the learned Judge did not carefully look into the provision under which he was intending to draw proceedings. If the learned Judge was of the view that contempt had been committed of his court then proper course for him was to refer the matter to the High Court which is vested with the jurisdiction to punish contempt of the subordinate judiciary. The imposition of fine of Rs. 2000/- is also unwarranted, if, it is held that the Judge proceeded under Section 345 CrPC because, the maximum sentence of fine permissible under the said provision is Rs. 200/-. Moreover, there is a procedure prescribed under Section 345 CrPC which too has not been observed by the learned Presiding Officer. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.;