Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by Sri Sant Ram Bhatia. The Petitioner was convicted for an offence under Sec. 228 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by one Sri S.N. Sharma, Magistrate 1st Class, Judicial Officer (City) Kanpur. The sentence awarded to him is fine of Rs. 200/ -.
(2.) Against that order of conviction there was an appeal preferred by the Petitioner which was dismissed by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur by his order dated 7th August, 1965. The relevant facts which emerge from the affidavit filed by the Petitioner in the court below and which have been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge are as follows: The Petitioner had occasion to appear in the court of Sri S.N. Sharma, Magistrate 1st Glass, Judicial Officer, Kanpur, in connection with some criminal cases, as the Petitioner is an advocate practising at Kanpur. On 2nd December, 1964 while the Petitioner was cross -examining the investigating officer in criminal case - -State v/s. Brijpati Singh - -Sri Sharma made the following remarks: Mai to janta tha ki aj subeh ap ki sakal dekh li hai aj ka kam ho chuka. The Petitioner felt greatly insulted and moved an application before Sri R.K. Garg, the then Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Kanpur, the same day against Sri Sharma, Magistrate. He also reported the matter to the President of the Bar Association, Sri S. Bhasin. The Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) called for an explanation of Sri Sharma which annoyed Sri Sharma very much. This incident was only a background of the incident that was to follow. On 18th January, 1965, according to the Petitioner he moved a bail application in the court of Sri Sharma on behalf of his client Dodh Nath. Mr. Sharma called for the report of A.P.P. on the same day. Although the report was received on the same day no order on the bail application was made. On the 20th of January, 1965, while the Petitioner was conducting a civil suit No. 82 of 1963 in the court of Munsif Havali, Kanpur, his clerk informed him that his presence for a few minutes in the court of the Judicial Officer, Sri Sharma, was necessary, with a view to get the surety bonds accepted by him. The Petitioner says that he hurriedly reached the court of the Magistrate and gave the surety bonds to the reader of the court. The amount for which the bond was furnished was by oversight not mentioned in the bond. The reader of the Court of the Judicial Officer asked the Petitioner to fill in the amount in the blank spaces provided for that purpose. Seeing this Mr. Sharma, Judicial Officer, made a remark in the following words: How have you dared to take the papers from the table? The Petitioner explained that he came hurriedly to that court, did not notice the omission and that he had taken the papers at the instance of the reader. The Petitioner then alleged that the Magistrate called two police constables and directed the Petitioner to be taken into custody and he was therefore taken into custody by two constables and remained in that condition for an hour. According to the Petitioner Mr. Sharma did not write any order for taking the Petitioner into custody. He dictated some order to the reader and got the same typed. Thereafter he directed the reader to obtain the signature of the Petitioner on that order. The Petitioner then filed an application indicating therein that he had been taken into custody by the order of the court. The Magistrate is said to have then gone into high temper and he loudly said: Chup Raho Mujhey Samjhao Nahi Abhi Tummhen Seedha Karta Hoon. Bahot Din Ke Bad Aj Hath Aye Ho. Ab Tumehn Nahin Chhorunga. Jaggi Baboo Se Mujhey Sab Kuchh Tomareh Babar Maloom Hai. Then Sri Sharma got another order of the nature of a notice Under Sec. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure typed. He put his signature and dated the same and handed over a copy of it to the Petitioner. On 30 -1 -1965, the Petitioner moved another application in the court of Sri Sharma enquiring about the nature of the offence said to be committed by him, so that he could submit his explanation fully and properly. That application was rejected and 9 -2 -1965, was fixed for filing of written statement. On 9 -2 -1965, the Petitioner could not file his written statement because according to the Petitioner Sri Sharma came to the Basta of the Petitioner at about 1.55 P.M. and intimidated him. The Petitioner then moved an application to that effect the same day in the court of Sri Sharma. On 10 -2 -1965, Sri Sharma told the Petitioner that he was conducting an enquiry Under Sec. 476 against the Petitioner. Sri Sharma examined his reader and APP of his Court and then proceeded to examine the Petitioner on that date. One of the questions put to the Petitioner on that date was as to why were the proceedings Under Sec. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure taken against him and it was in answer to that question that the Petitioner spoke the words which have been quoted in the order of the learned Magistrate. Thereafter the learned Magistrate took proceedings Under Sec. 228 of the IPC at about 6.20 P.M. and convicted the Petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -. All these facts mentioned above are mentioned in the affidavit that the Petitioner filed in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur, on 3 -3 -1965. The learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur, has noticed that affidavit and has observed that there was no counter affidavit against it on behalf of the State. It appears from the order of the learned Sessions Judge that he took the facts stated in the affidavit to be correct. It was on the basis of those facts that the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to consider the question whether an offence Under Sec. 228 of the IPC read with Sec. 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had made out against the Petitioner or not and he answered that question in the affirmative, consequently maintained the order of conviction of the Petitioner. Sec. 228 of the IPC reads: Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. . The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate in this particular case was one prescribed by Sec. 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec. 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins that when an offence as described in Sec. 228 of the IPC is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day may, if it thinks fit, take cognizance of the offence and sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees and in default of payment, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid.
(3.) That the words spoken by the Petitioner were capable of causing insult to any person cannot be open to any doubt. Further it is also not open to any doubt that the Magistrate was a public servant and that he was sitting at some stage of a judicial proceeding. The only question, therefore, that arose in this case was whether the words that were spoken by the Petitioner were spoken with the intention of offering insult to such a public servant.;