D.V.SEHGAL,J - (1.) THE learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala forwarded to this Court copy of the proceedings dated 2.4.1985 recorded by Sh. Brinder Singh, P.C.S. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, the relevant part of which is to the following effect :- "At this stage Sh. G.C. Dhanda, Advocate has appeared in the court in a drunken condition and on asking him by me to cross examine the witnesses, he has flatly refused to cross-examine the witness on the ground that it had made him to appear today and that he is a great man. He uttered remarks that nobody could compel him to appear before him. He also threatened that he would put me in a great difficulty and that he would teach me a lesson by reporting the matter to the higher authorities and that he has big contacts with all. By using such like language he created such a scene in the court upon which people gathered in the Court and it was difficult to control them and Mr. Dhanda continued passing abusive remarks against me. So I had to adjourn the case work till after lunch-time. Matter be reported to learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala for information and further necessary action. To come up after-lunch." When the matter came up before S.S. Sodhi, J., a notice was directed to be issued to Mr. G.C. Dhanda Advocate Fatehgarh Sahib under the Contempt of Court Act for 27th May, 1985. The proceedings later on were placed before a Division Bench of this Court. Sh. Gian Chand Dhanda-respondent in reply to the notice submitted his affidavit dated 18th July, 1985. The averments contained therein can be summarised thus :- "He is old man of 74 years of age. He has been an opium addict for over 50 years. In the month of March, 1985, he took opium which was not genuine and was adulterated with some poisonous stuff. After eating it, he fell sick. It had very bad effect on his health and he became bed-ridden. Since he was seriously ill he could not appear in Criminal Misc. No. 1074 of 1985 in Cr. Revision No. 297 of 1985, "Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab", fixed before M.M. Punchhi, J., on 20.3.1985. He in fact sent a request in writing through his Private Secretary to the high Court, copy of which is Annexure R-1. On this request, the case was adjourned by M.M. Punchhi, J., to 18.4.1985. His sickness after taking non-genuine opium prolonged and he was not in a position to appear even on 18.4.1985 and he made another request for adjournment of the matter fixed before M.M. Punchhi, J. which was accordingly adjourned to 2.5.1985. The case State v. Mohan Singh etc. arising out of FIR No. 211 dated 28.10.1982 under Section 420 IPC was fixed before Sh. Brinder Singh, Judicial magistrate 1st Class, Fatehgarh Sahib on 22.4.1985 in which he was a counsel for the accused but he could not attend the case because of his illness. Sh. I.S. Cheema Advocate who was at one time his Clerk appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate and requested for grant of adjournment, who, however, ordered that the respondent must come to his Court and cross-examine the prosecution witness. Mohan Singh, one of the accused, came to his house to call him. He, however, told Mohan Singh that he was unable to attend the Court as he was in very bad shape and had not yet recovered from the effects of opium. Mohan Singh went back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate who again required the presence of the respondent. He thus reached the Court on its command. He states that he was totally in bad shape. He was unwashed and un shaven. He had not taken bath for quite a few days. he had not (?) reached the Court but it was not possible for him to conduct the case. He told the learned Magistrate that he was sick and it was not proper on the part of the learned magistrate to force him to come to the Court in this bad health; that the other counsel were in the Court and they had requested for adjournment which ought to have been granted. He told the learned Magistrate that the Court could have proceeded with the case as it liked but his attendance could not be forced. This might shatter his health which was already frail. He admitted that he went to the extent of saying that he might collapse as the action of the learned Magistrate had caused a lot of strain on him. He denied that he used any abusive language. He admitted that he told the learned Magistrate that he would report the matter to the higher authorities but he described as totally wrong the allegation that he went to the Court in a drunken condition. He stated that in fact the question of drinking by him did not arise as opium intoxication is opposed to drinking."
(2.) THREE witness namely Vidya Parkash, CW1, Reader to the Court of learned Magistrate, Janki Dass CW2, Copyist to the Court and Sudhir Kumar CW3 who was working as Steno Typist of the learned Magistrate and was present in Court on 22.4.1985, have appeared in the witness box. The respondent on the other had, has produced Sh. M.S. Bajwa RW1, Vice President bar Association, Fatehgarh Sahib, besides relying on documents Annexures R1, R2 and R3 which form part of his affidavit in reply. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab, appearing for the Court and the respondent-contemner who argued his case in person. We find that the allegations contained in the proceedings dated 22.4.1985 recorded by Sh. Birinder Singh, Judicial Magistrate which might have constituted Contempt of Court committed by the respondent-contemner are not borne out from the evidence. The first allegation that the respondent appeared in Court in a drunken condition is not supported by any of the three witnesses who have appeared in the Court. The second allegation that he passed abusive remarks against the learned Magistrate also remains unsubstantiated. In fact the evidence of the witnesses is merely to the effect that the learned Magistrate and the respondent exchanged hot words. Vidya Parkash CW1 states that the respondent started speaking loudly in Court which attracted a crowd. He, however, could not say whether the respondent was under the influence of any drug or alcohol. He states that the respondent inquired from the presiding Officer as to why he had been called from his house when he was not well and that led to exchange of hot words between the presiding officer and the respondent. They were speaking in English. Whatever little the could follow there was no exchange of abuses. He admitted in cross-examination that exchange of hot words between the presiding officer and the respondent lasted for about 5/7 minutes. Likewise Janki Dass CW2 has stated that he was sitting in room adjoining to the Court room and saw the respondent speaking to the presiding officer in English in a loud tone. He further stated that amongst the person who gathered in the court room Sh. Vinod Chopra Advocate was also there. He could not recollect as to what the respondent was saying to the Court. Sudhir Kumar CW3 stated that the respondent informed the Court that he was lying ill and asked the Court why had he been called, he lost his temper and exchanged hot words with the presiding officer. This quarrel between them lasted for a few minutes only. This evidence, in our view, does not establish either of two allegations that the respondent came to the Court in a drunken condition or that he passed abusive remarks against the learned magistrate. No doubt the witnesses have stated that the respondent told the learned magistrate that he would complain against him to the higher authorities, but this in our view does not amount to scandalising the Court and for this reason does not constitute Contempt of Court.
(3.) THE respondent made an attempt to bring on record material to show that Sh. Birinder Singh Judicial Magistrate had exchanged hot words with Sh. H.S. Diwana Advocate on 8.8.1985 when the latter was conductings a criminal case in his Court and that the Bar Association passed a resolution against him. He also referred to First Information Report No. 99 dated 2.6.1984 registered by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kharar against Sh. Brinder Singh, Judicial Magistrate. The evidence is not at all germane to the question whether the respondent is guilty of conduct which constitutes Contempt of Court. We therefore rule this material out of consideration.;