BHOLA NATH CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court, by an order dated 16-2-1960, directed Bhola Nath Chaudhary, contemner, to show cause by 8th March 1960 why he should not be committed for contempt of court for causing obstruction to the proceedings in the Court of Sri K. S. Pande, First Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna, after he dictated an order on 19-12-1959 refusing bail to Sushil Kumar Choudhary, appellant, in Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 1959 (Sushil Kumar Chaudhury v. The State) and for addressing the learned Addl. Sessions Judge loudly and vehemently and in a highly excited and furious manner in course of which he (1) vilified and insulted the Public Prosecutor Sri Pande Narsingh Sahai, (2) threatened the Munsiff Magistrate who had tried the criminal case giving rise to the criminal appeal, and the Public Prosecutor with violence boasting that it was he who had fired at Lord Wavell, (3) attacked the integrity of the trying Magistrate and the Public Prosecutor alleging that the latter had secured the judgment of conviction in the case against Sushil Kumar Chaudhary by exercising influence over the Magistrate, (4) attempted to overawe the Addl. Sessions Judge, the Munsiff Magistrate and the Public Prosecutor by naming some high dignitaries in connection with the criminal appeal, (5) gave out that he would get his son released by the President of India and (6) alleged that the conviction of his son Sushil Kumar Chau-dhary was brought about by means of a conspiracy hatched by the Public Prosecutor and others.

(2.) The facts and circumstances in which this proceeding was drawn up are these: On 20-3-1959 some time after 3-45 p.m., three girls and a boy Rakesh Kumar, were returning home from the Women's College, Patna, on a rickshaw driven by Jagdeo Mandal Two boys on one cycle followed them from the College and when the rickshaw reached near the building then occupied by the Oriental Life Assurance Company, on the Dak Bungalow Road, they came on the right side of the rickshaw and one of them who was tall and was driving the cycle, threw some liquid on the occupants of the said rickshaw. That boy and the other one who had brown hair and white complexion and was sitting on the carrier of the cycle fled away. The liquid, however, fell on the four occupants of the rickshaw and also on the driver and they felt much pain and an alarm was raised. The driver's attempt to get at the miscreants was futile. The rickshaw proceeded ahead and reached up to a laundry known as M/s. ''Sunshine" from where an information was sent to the guardians of those girls about this incident. Dr. R. V. P. Sinha, who was returning with his daughter from the College by the same route, found those girls and the boy in misery and came to their rescue by taking them to the hospital in his car. Medical aid was given to them in the Medical College hospital and an information was sent to the Sub-Inspector of Pirbahore Police Station. The Sub-Inspector went to the Hospital, and recorded the statement of Onika Kapoor, one of the girls. Investigation proceeded and Sushil Ku-mar Chaudhary was arrested later in the night the same day whereas one Sultan Jaffar was arrested on the following day. They were put on a test identification parade on 21st March, 1959 and Sushil Kumar Chaudhary was identified by two girls and the driver of the rickshaw. The police submitted a charge-sheet against Sushil Kumar Chaudhary and Sultan Jaffar and they were put on trial. They pleaded innocence and alleged that they were falsely implicated. The trial was a long and protracted one. The evidence in the case was recorded by Sri Ramji Upadhya. a Magistrate of the 1st class, and a date was fixed for judgment. Sushil Kumar Chaudhary did not, however, appear on that date and the judgment could not be delivered. The case was later transferred to the file of Shri Shambhunath Sinha, Magistrate, Patna and heard the arguments. He held that Sushil Kumar Chaudhary threw sulphuric acid on the three girls and the boy sitting on the rickshaw and it fell on the driver as well and that the other accused Sultan Jaffar was sitting on the carrier on the same cycle when Sushil Kumar Chaudhary threw the acid. He thus by his judgment dated 17th December, 1959 convicted Sushil Kumar Chaudhary under Section 326 of the I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a year and a half and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. He convicted Sultan Jaffar under Section 326/34, I. P. C., and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. On 19-12-1959, Sushil Kumar Chaudhary preferred an appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 1959, before the Sessions Judge of Patna, and a prayer for bail was made on his behalf. The matter of bail was heard on 19-12-1959 by Sri K. S. Pandey, First Addl. Sessions Judge at Patna. Sri Khaderan Singh, Advocate, moved for bail on behalf of the appellant and it was opposed by Sri Pandey Nar-singh Sahai, Public Prosecutor. The learned Addf. Sessions Judge having heard arguments, dictated an order in court refusing bail to Sushil Kumar Chaudhary. The contemner, it is alleged, then got up and started a harangue which I will deal with, hereafter elaborately as this was the subject-matter of the charge for contempt. The learned Addl. Sessions' Judge, however, directed that the appeal should be put up on 22-12-1959 before the Sessions Judge of Patna giving liberty to the appellant to renew his prayer for bail.

(3.) This incident in the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge on 19-12-1959 interrupted the proceeding of the Court and attracted a crowd in the Court room affecting the dignity of the Court itself. The District and Sessions Judge made enquiries from certain members of the Bar who were present in the Court room and also from the learned Addl. Sessions Judge about this incident and the reports are from Sarvashri Sridhar Dayal Singh, advocate, Phanibhusan Prasad, advocate, Pandey Narsingh Sahai, Public Prosecutor, Khaderan Singh) advocate, Brajeshwari Prasad advocate, Pande Gunjeshwari Sahai, advocate and K. S. Pandey, Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Patna. It appears from these reports that the contemner called the Public Prosecutor, a liar, threatened him and the Munsiff Magistrate alleging that the Public Prosecutor had influenced the Magistrate and secured the conviction of Sushil Kumar Chaudhary. On receipt of these reports the contemner was directed to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court.