1991 (9) TMI 346 - SC - Indian Laws

Police officers sentenced to imprisonment for assaulting Chief Judicial Magistrate on fabricated charges

DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION TIS HAZARICOURT, DELHI ET Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC-ETC.

SC held police officers in contempt for arresting, assaulting, and humiliating a Chief Judicial Magistrate on fabricated charges. The Court sentenced the ... Legality of arrest, assault, and humiliation of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) by police officers - Contempt of court proceedings - Guidelines for the arrest and detention of judicial officers - exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution - Inspector of Police, with 25 years of service posted at the Police Station, Nadiad, arrested, assaulted and handcuffed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad and tied him with a thick rope like an animal and made a public exhibition of it by sending him in the same condition to the Hospital for medical examination on an alleged charge of having consumed liquor in breach of the prohibition law enforced in the State of Gujarat. HELD THAT:- Proceedings for contempt of court are different than those taken for the prosecution of a person for an offence under the criminal jurisdiction. Contempt proceedings are peculiar in nature although in certain aspects they are quasicriminal in nature but they do not form part of criminal jurisdiction of the court. Criminal prosecution pending against the CJM or against the contemners has no bearing on the contempt proceedings initiated by this Court as the present proceedings are not for the purpose of punishing the contemners for the offence of wrongful detention and assault on N.L. Patel, Chief Judicial Magistrate, instead these proceedings have been taken to protect the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and to preserve the confidence of people in Courts. We, accordingly, reject the contemner’s objection. No enactment made by Central or State Legislature can limit or restrict the power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, though while exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court must take into consideration the statutory provisions regulating the matter in dispute. What would be the need of 'complete justice' in a cause or matter would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and while exercising that power the Court would take into consideration the express provisions of a substantive statute. Once this Court has taken seisin of a case, cause or matter, it has power to pass any order or issue direction as may be necessary to do complete justice in the matter. In determining the punishment, the degree and the extent of part played by each of the contemners has to be kept in mind. Sharma, Police Inspector who was the main actor in the entire incident and who had planned the entire episode with a view to humiliate the CJM in the publis eye is the main culprit, therefore, he deserves maximum punishment. Sadia, Sub-Inspector took active part in assaulting and tying the CJM at the behest of Sharma, Police Inspector. Valijibhai Kalajibhai, Head Constable and Pratap Singh, Constable also took active part in handcuffing and tying the CJM with ropes, but as subordinate officials they acted under the orders of his superior officer. M.B. Sawant, Mamlatdar was friendly to Sharma, Police Inspector, he had no axe to grind against the CJM but he acted under the influence of Sharma, Police Inspector. So far as D.K. Dhagal is concerned, he actively abetted the commission of onslaught on the CJM. S.R. Sharma, the then Police Inspector, Nadiad shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and he shall pay fine of ₹ 2,000. K.H. Sadia, Sub-Inspector, Nadiad shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months and will pay a fine of ₹ 2000 and in default he will undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. Valjibhai Kalajibhai, Head Constable and Pratap Singh, Constable, both are convicted and awarded simple imprisonment for a period of two months and a fine of ₹ 500 each, in default they would undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. M.B. Savant, Mamlatdar is convicted and awarded two month’s simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 1000 and in default he would undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. D.K. Dhagal, the then District Superintendent of Police, Kheda, is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of ₹ 1000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. So far as other respondents against whom notices of contempt have been issued by the Court, there is no adequate material on record to hold them guilty of contempt of court, we accordingly discharge the notices issued to them. The facts of the instant case demonstrate that a presiding officer of a court may be arrested and humiliated on flimsy and manufactured charges which could affect the administration of justice. In order to avoid any such situation in future, we consider it necessary to lay down guidelines which should be followed in the case of arrest and detention of a Judicial Officer. No person whatever his rank, or designation may be, is, above law and he must face the penal consequences of infraction of criminal law. A Magistrate, Judge or any other Judicial Officer is liable to criminal prosecution for an offence like any other citizen but in view of the paramount necessity of preserving the independence of judiciary and at the same time ensuring that infractions of law are properly investigated, we think that the following guidelines should be followed. We, accordingly, direct that a copy of the guidelines shall be forwarded to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments and to all the High Courts with a direction that the same may be brought to the notice of the concerned officers for compliance. We do not approve N.L. Patel’s conduct in visiting the Police Station on the invitation of Police Inspector Sharma. In our opinion, no Judicial Officer should visit a Police Station on his own except in connection with his official and judicial duties and functions. If it is necessary for a Judicial Officer or a Subordinate Judicial Officer to visit the Police Station in connection with his official duties, he must do so with prior intimation of his visit to the District & Sessions Judge. The Writ Petitions, Contempt Petitions and Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Issues Involved:1. Incident of arrest, assault, and humiliation of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) by police officers.2. Inquiry and findings by Justice R.M. Sahai.3. Contempt of court proceedings against police officers.4. Quashing of criminal proceedings against the CJM.5. Guidelines for the arrest and detention of judicial officers.Summary:1. Incident of Arrest, Assault, and Humiliation:On 25th September 1989, Inspector S.R. Sharma arrested, assaulted, and handcuffed N.L. Patel, CJM, Nadiad, tying him with a thick rope and publicly humiliating him on a false charge of consuming liquor in violation of Gujarat's prohibition law. This incident led to national outrage among the judiciary and legal fraternity, prompting several petitions u/s Article 32 of the Constitution for protecting judicial dignity.2. Inquiry and Findings by Justice R.M. Sahai:Justice R.M. Sahai was appointed to inquire into the incident. His report, based on evidence and witness statements, found that Patel was invited to the police station by Sharma, assaulted, and forced to consume liquor. The police's version of events was deemed fabricated. The report highlighted the premeditated nature of the assault and the complicity of other police officers.3. Contempt of Court Proceedings:The Supreme Court issued contempt notices to several police officers involved. The findings of the inquiry were upheld, rejecting objections raised by the police officers. The court held that the police officers' actions constituted criminal contempt as they lowered the authority of the judiciary and interfered with the administration of justice. S.R. Sharma, K.H. Sadia, Valjibhai Kalajibhai, Pratap Singh, and M.B. Savant were found guilty of contempt.4. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Against the CJM:The court quashed the criminal proceedings against Patel, holding that the FIRs and subsequent charge sheets were based on false and manufactured evidence. The court exercised its power u/s Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings, ensuring complete justice and preventing abuse of the court process.5. Guidelines for Arrest and Detention of Judicial Officers:The court laid down specific guidelines to be followed in the case of the arrest and detention of judicial officers to preserve judicial independence and ensure fair treatment. These include prior intimation to the District Judge or High Court, technical or formal arrest, immediate communication of arrest, prohibition of taking the judicial officer to a police station without prior order, and no handcuffing except in cases of violent resistance.Conclusion:The court emphasized the importance of protecting the judiciary's dignity and independence, condemned the police officers' actions, and directed the State Government to take disciplinary action against the erring officers. The court's decision aimed to prevent future incidents of a similar nature and ensure the administration of justice remains unimpeded.