G.R.MAJITHIA, J. - (1.) REFERENCE under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act) was received from the District and Sessions Judge, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Judge) on August 31, 1989 through a Special Messenger and my Lord the Hon'ble Chief Justice V. Ramaswami (as his Lordship then was pleased to direct that it be dealt with on the judicial side.
(2.) THE facts as unfolded in the reference are On August 29, 1989, the District Judge commenced his day's work with the inspection of the Central Jail, Hissar. He started Court work at 10.00 a.m. Besides two sessions cases, several cases of arguments, miscellaneous cases and bail applications were also fixed for disposal. In the sessions case titled as State v. Joginder Singh and another. The statement of the investigating officer was recorded. The prosecution closed its evidence and the District Judge recorded the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since no defence was led by the accused, he heard the arguments in the case and fixed the same for pronouncement of judgment for August 31, 1989 in the second Session Case, namely State v. Jagdish etc., under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, registered vide FIR No. 298, dated September 16, 1988, part of the evidence was recorded by Shri K. K. Chopra, Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar in whose Court the case was then pending. Statement of Dr. N. K. Kulshrestha, Medical Officer, was incomplete. He was not served for the date fixed and instead two doctors, who were members of the Board of doctors which had conducted autopsy on the deceased were served. Dr. N. K. Kulshrestha was called from the local hospital and his statement was recorded. The statement of Inderjit, Draftsman, was also recorded. At about 2.40 p.m. Shri J. C. Sethi, Senior Advocate, appearing for the accused, submitted that the statement of the eye witnesses could not be recorded within the Court hours and prayed for a short adjournment so that the eye-witnesses might be examined on the same day.; otherwise it would prejudice his case. The case was adjourned for September 8, 1989. In this case, the Public Prosecutor appeared for the State assisted by Sarvshri P. K. Sandhir and R. L. Bimal, Advocates. The accused were represented by Shri J. C. Sethi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sarvshri Inder Singh Nain and Sanjay Singh, Advocates.
(3.) AFTER the case was adjourned, the District Judge was sitting in the Court room and reading and signing the evidence sheets of the depositions recorded in the sessions cases on August 29, 1989. He had still to dictate the interim orders passed in the cases. Suddenly, a police officer appeared in front of him. He was holding a police cane in his hand and by holding that cane in his fingers simultaneously was showing his palms time and again indicating his resentment that his evidence was not recorded in the case as he was the Investigating Officer. The District Judge told him that the case had been adjourned. The respondent replied that he had come from Narnaul and the case had been adjourned. The District Judge told him that he was reading and signing some evidence and further told him kindly wait outside for the time being. (Thinking that he will be issued the attendance certificate). The respondent stated that he had come from Narnaul to salute the Court, but he was showing his palms time and again holding his stick between the fingers and right thumb. He continued to do this. The District Judge again requested him that he does not matter; he should wait outside and he would get the certificate. The respondent then suddenly went in rage and told that he was a Class Officer and was DSP Narnaul by the name of Tara Chand and that he was not going to sit outside the Court. Then he shouted the following words: "Nahi Jata Kia Kar Loge? Main DSP Hun. Main Class 1 Officer Hun. Main Sessions Judge Ko Kia Samajtha Hun. Karlo Mera Kia Kar Sakate Ho. Main Session Judge Ko Kia Samajhta Hun. Karlo Mera Kia Kar Sakte Ho." (The above colloquial words when translated into English read as follows : "I would not go out, what would you do ? I am DSP. I am Class-I Officer. What do I care for a Sessions Judge. Do whatever harm you can do to me. What do I care for a Sessions Judge ? Do whatever harm you can do to me ?") The respondent repeated the same words fifteen times in a very high tone, consistently glaring at this offensive posture throughout and the District Judge was offensive that he could have climbed up the dais from the front side, had he not been firmly held by Sarvshri D. S. Kajal and P. K. Sandhir. The respondent was taken outside the Court room. About 10-15 minutes thereafter while the District Judge was still in his chair, the respondent again entered the Court room in the presence of Sarvshri D. S. Kajal, and P. K. Sandhir and some other advocates, who were enquiring about the incident and threatened the District Judge in the following words : "Main Jalus Nikalwa Dunga; Mai, Yahan Nare Lagwa Dunga; Mera Tum Kia Karlega; Mera Tum Kia Karlega." (The above colloquial words when translated into English I read as follows; "I will have a procession taken out. I will also get the slogans shouted over here. What would You uproot of mine? What would you uproot of mine ?") The posture of the respondent was most horrifying, most aggressive and shocking while the District Judge was signing the evidence recorded in the Court in the day. The District Judge was performing his official duty and the wintess (i.e the respondent) was, insisting on his evidence when the date had already been given in the case. It is stated in the reference that the court was within its right atleast to request the witness (i.e. respondent) to wait outside so that his problems could be solved through the District Attorney (public Prosecutor), who was appearing in the State case. By insisting for his evidence and by showing his palms to the Court time and again with a cane in one of his hands, the conduct of the respondent was contemptuous to the Court and it virtually prevented the Court from reading and signing the evidence which was recorded earlier during the day. At both the times, the District Judge kept his cool and did not say a word to the respondent. Feeling that the respondent was in a great rage and had lost temper, the District Judge in order to maintain the dignity and decorum of the court did not utter a single word as he was supposed to act in a mature way." ;