Gyanendra Kumar, J. - (1.) This is an application for taking contempt proceedings against the Respondent for hampering the process of law by - - (i) threatening, beating up and dishonestly arresting the complainants so that they may not prosecute their cases against the Respondent; (ii) threatening, beating up and dishonestly arresting their witnesses so that they may not give evidence against the Respondent; and (iii) threatening, beating up and unlawfully detaining the counsel appearing in the complaint cases in order to deter him from conducting the same. Three instances have been cited by the Petitioner - - (a) relating to Sukh Lal complainant and his witness Sheoraj and Sheo Karan; (b) relating to Babu Lal and Munni Lal, who were witnesses in Raja Ram's complaint case and (c) relating to the Petitioner, Ram Narain Gupta Advocate, who was appearing as counsel or brief -holder in the above and some other complaint cases pending against the Respondent. The above instances will be dealt with seriatim, after setting forth preliminary facts and disposing of preliminary objections.
(2.) The Petitioner, Ram Narain Gupta, is an Advocate practising at Kanpur, mostly on the criminal side, while the Respondent, Ravi Dutta Singh, was the Station Officer, PS Narwal, in the district of Kanpur. In his capacity as a lawyer, the Petitioner had filed several criminal complaints against the Respondent on behalf of his clients, such as Har Govind Singh, Manbodhan and Raja Ram. In certain others he had held the brief of the complainants' counsel, e.g. in the cases filed by Sukh Lal and Babu Lal. The complaint of Manbodhan was instituted on 30 -10 -1965. It is alleged that Manbohdan was put under arrest, threatened and beaten by the Respondent in the thana with the result that his complaint was ultimately dismissed for default on 14 -4 -1966. Here we are not concerned with Manbodhan's case, except that the Petitioner was his counsel therein.
(3.) The first objection of the Respondent's counsel is that the Petitioners affidavit in support of this contempt application has not been properly verified inasmuch as (1) facts beyond the personal knowledge of the Petitioner have been inserted in the affidavit and (2) verification clause is defective in so far as the paragraphs relating to the case of Babu Lal and Munni Lal have been sworn partly on personal knowledge, while the basis of knowledge of the remaining part has not been disclosed. These formal defects lose all significance where the Petitioner has stepped into the witness -box and has been thoroughly cross -examined, inter alia about the sources of knowledge of various facts alleged by him and when Babu Lal and Munni Lal had not only filed their respective affidavits but had also appeared as witnesses before this Court, to be thoroughly cross examined.;