AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.S. Tiwana, J.—On May 7, 1987, one Jangiro wife of Prem Chand filed a habeas corpus petition (Criminal Writ Petition No. 582 of 1987) with the allegations that her minor daughter Miss Kamla aged about 15 years was abducted from her residence by five/six persons on May 2, 1987. Later on May 4, 1987. she found that Kamla had been detained and locked in a room by the Respondent, i.e., Dhanna son of Mollu in village Dhabi Gujran, P.S. Patran. She also alleged that as a matter of fact her brother Khelu, in conspiracy with the local C.I.A Inspector of Police, Samana and the Respondent, had tried to abduct Kamla a few days earlier to May 2, 1987 and in spite of the fact that the entire matter had been brought to the notice of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samana much earlier in the presence of the members of Panchayat of her village the police authorities had failed to take any action in the matter. She further maintained that Khelu her brother appeared to have promised to marry Kamla to the Respondent in lieu of the latter having married his sister Sonti with Khelu. In a nut shall, her case was that Kamla who was a minor had been detained in illegal confinement in village Dhabi Gujran and be got released.
Since I was of the opinion that the local police was already in the know of the matter and the allegations levelled in the petition required to be verified, I vide my order dated May 7, 1987 directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samana, to look into the matter and to submit his report by May 11, 1987. A copy of this order was also directed to be delivered Dasti No report from the D S. P. however, was received by the date fixed, i.e., May 11, 1987. The case was thus adjourned to, May 18, 1987 with the direction that a reminder be issued for expediting the report. The report again was not received till the date fixed, i.e., May 18, 1987. On that day it was maintained by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the direction contained in my order dated May 7, 1987 had duly been communicated to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samana, through Mr. Kuldip Singh Sahni, Advocate, Patiala. Before taking this averment as factually correct, I directed the learned Counsel to file an affidavit of Mr. Kuldip Singh Sahni, Advocate, in support of his above noted stand. This affidavit was filed by Mr. Sahni toy May 20, 1987. It was stated therein that copy of the order of this Court dated May 7, 1987, had personally been handed over to the Respondent, i.e., Mr. Harnek Singh Sara, D.S.P. Samana on May 9, 1987 who in turn handed over the same to Mr. Gurbux Singh of C.I.A. Samana. Since in the light of this sworn testimony of Mr. Kuldip Singh I was of the view that prima facie the Respondent was guilty of contempt of Court in not submitting the report as per the direction contained in the order of this Court dated May 7, 1987, I while appointing a warrant Officer for the search and production of the alleged detenue on May, 22, 1987, directed a notice to be issued to Mr. Harnek Singh Sara, D S. P., Samana, under the Contempt of Courts Act for June 4, 1987 to show cause for the non-compliance of the order dated May 7 1987. The Respondent, however, remained unserved for the next two dates and ultimately put in appearance on August 31, 1987. In his reply filed in the form of an affidavit on that date he besides tendering apology "for the inconvenience faced by the Court" explained his position in the following manner:-
It is humbly submitted that the deponent had received some orders of this Hon''ble Court in a marriage party on 9.5.1987, at Samana through his friend. The deponent said to the person who delivered the summons, was informed that the report cannot be submitted on 11.5.87. However, the deponent was under transfer during this period left charge on 27 5 87. On account of these circumstances the deponent could not submit the report in time. The deponent is a responsible Police Officer and cannot dare to disobey any order of the Hon''ble Court. The order of this Hon''ble Court, had it been in the name of the deponent, even than the deponent must have complied with that The perusal of the order would show that it is on the name of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samana The deponent was already transferred to Amritsar as submitted earlier and the papers were left in office.
Since as per this plea the sole defence for not submitting the report within the scheduled time was that he was under orders of transfer and the direction of this Court bad been addressed to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samana by virtue of his office and not to him personally, I vide my order of the same date directed him "to produce the original transfer order received by him and also to file an affidavit to the effect; as to on which date that order was actually served on him". In response to this he filed his affidavit dated September 16, 1987 the material part of which is to the following effect:-
That the deponent was transferred from Samana to Baba Bakala vide T. P. M. Message No. 640-626 CON-SA-6 dated 17.5 1987, This order was conveyed by S. S. P. Patiala to the deponent on 18.5.87 at about 8 A. M telephonically. The deponent left the charge on 27.5.87 and proceeded to join at Baba Bakala.
It is thus plain in the light of the latter mentioned affidavit of the Respondent that his earlier stand as deposed to in his affidevit dated August 31,1987, that he was under orders of transfer when a copy of the order of this Court dated May 7, 1981 was served on him on May 9, 1987, is palpably false. Concededly the order of his transfer was passed for the first time on May 17, 1987 and he continued to hold the office till May 27, 1987. This may well call for another notice under the Contempt of Courts Act or even prosecution of the Respondent under the Indian Penal Code but at the same time the falsity of this defence at least aggrevates the charge against him. In the absence of any other explanation on his part as to why he could not carry out the direction of this Court as contained in order dated May 7, 1987 it has to be accepted that he had no mind to comply with that direction nor be actually did. In case there was paucity of time in submission the requisite report as was sought to be highlighted by Mr. Mann, his learned Counsel, the minimum expected of the Respondent was that he should have approached this Court by the date fixed or even some time later and explained the reason as to why he could not comply with the order of the Court. On the contrary the following words in his reply dated August 31, 1985 clearly indicate that he was in no mood to carry out the direction contained in that order: -
... The deponent had received some orders of this Hon''ble Court .... The deponent said to the person who delivered the summons, was informed that the report cannot be submitted on 11.5 87.
I am. therefore, fully satisfied that the non-compliance of the order of this Court dated May 7, 1987 by the Respondent was deliberate and he has no explanation whatsoever to offer for this conduct of his. It is patent that disobedience of a direction or an order of a Court, whether prohibitive or mandatory or whether made ex parte or upon hearing both the parties, or interim or perpetual, amounts to contempt of it tends to interfere with the administration of justice or brings into disrespect or disregard the authority of the Court itself. Therefore. I also attach no weight or importance to the words "unconditional apology" occurring in ithe last paragraph of his affidavit dated August 31, 1987 upon which words Mr. Mann, his learned Counsel tried to bank too much. To my mind the falsity of the defence raised by the Respondent clearly robs this apology of contrition, if there was any. The use of these words appears to be out of necessity or in any case nothing more than the words of ordinary courtesy.
Though I always shun to be oversensitive in exercising this jurisdiction hut am equally reluctant to allow the institutional authority of this Court to be eroded in any manner. The matter assumes different propensities when the person accused of contempt happens to be a member of the disciplined force and of considerable authority as the Respondent is. In such a case the determining factor is not the harm done to an individual or to a case but the harm done to the future administration of justice. I. therefore, find no ground to exonerate or absolve the Respondent of the charge against him.
Thus keeping in view the nature of the charge and the nature of the Respondent, 1 sentence him to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The fine be paid within a fortnight from today; in case of default he will undergo a week''s simple