# DAROGA SINGH AND ORS v. B.K. PANDEY - **Citation:** [2004] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 113 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2004-04-13 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1998 - **Bench:** R.C. Lahoti, Ashok Bhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/daroga-singh-and-ors-v-b-k-pandey-19905 - **Pages:** 32 ## Headnote B Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sections JO and 2(c)-Contempt of subordinate court-Assault on Additional District and Sessions Judge in a pre-planned and calculated manner C in his court room and chambers by police officials not In uniform-Jurisdiction of High Court to take cognizance-Held: Acts committed amounts to deliberate interference with the discharge of duty of a judicial officer by intimidation, lowers the dignity of the Court and interferes with the administration ofjustice and as such are not punishable as contempt under section 228 JPC, but D covered under the definition of criminal contempt-Hence, High Court competent to take cognizance of such matter-Penal Code, I 860-Section 228. Sections I 5(2) and I 0-Criminal contempt of subordinate court-Suo motu cognizance by High Court-Permissibility of-Held: On proper E construction, sub-section (2) of section I 5 does not restrict power of High Court to take cognizance of and punish contempt of subordinate court on its own motion-Interpretation of statutes. Sections 17 and 2(c)-Criminal contempt-Procedure for convictionHeld: High Court has to decide contempt proceedings in a summary manner- F It must follow fair procedure and give fair and reasonable opportunity to the contemnors-On facts, Judicial Officer assaulted in a pre-planned and calculated manner in his court room and chambers by police officials not in uniform-Conviction on the basis of affidavit filed, High Court giving/air and reasonable opportunity to contemnors-Opportunity of cross-examination not G availed at appropriate stage-Thus, no fault could be found with the summary procedure adopted by High Court in conducting the proceedings-Sentence of simple imprisonment imposed on contemnors justified Investigating Officer was to be cross-examined in Sessions trial. All 113 H 114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. A means of securing his presence were exhausted but still he did not appear. Ultimately non-bailable warrant was issued but was of no avail. After about two months, he appeared before the court and was remanded to judicial custody. On his behalf bail petition was filed after the court hours and was placed for hearing on the next day. On the same day one. of the B office bearers of policemen's association went to the chamber~ of the Judicial Officer for release of the 1q ~ut it was declined. Next d~y when. the bail petition was taken up, .it was withdrawn. Thereafter, the police officials not in uniform, armed with lathis and other weapons attacked and manhandled the Judicial Officer in his courtroom and chamber and reiterated their demand for unconditional release of the IO. They also C attacked the court staff and some of the lawyers and also damaged furniture and motor vehicles parked in the court compound. Another Judicial Officer sent report of the incident to High Court. It included names of police officials who were identified. Criminal case was registered and also writ petition was filed by Lawyer's As$ociation. D E Primafacie case of criminal contempt was made out and proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were initiated against contemnors and also show cause notice were issued against them. The contemnors filed their detailed r'eplies. Director General of Police filed his independent report which disclosed names of nine officers found guilty for the alleged incident. State Government issued different orders and suspended all the officials from service. Thereafter, Commission of Inquiry was also set up. Apart from the departmental proceedings, different criminal cases were filed against them. Some of the senior police officials gave their statements and identified more names involved in the incident. Judicial officer involved, his staff and some of the lawyers also filed their affidavits. 26 F persons were issued show cause notices. Out of these persons except for one or two, the remaining asserted that they were not involved in the incident and for proof they attached the ## Text _Characters 0–39,924 of 82,160. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39924 for what follows._ DAROGA SINGH AND ORS. A v. B.K. PANDEY APRIL 13, 2004 [R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] B Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Sections JO and 2(c)-Contempt of subordinate court-Assault on Additional District and Sessions Judge in a pre-planned and calculated manner C in his court room and chambers by police officials not In uniform-Jurisdiction of High Court to take cognizance-Held: Acts committed amounts to deliberate interference with the discharge of duty of a judicial officer by intimidation, lowers the dignity of the Court and interferes with the administration ofjustice and as such are not punishable as contempt under section 228 JPC, but D covered under the definition of criminal contempt-Hence, High Court competent to take cognizance of such matter-Penal Code, I 860-Section 228. Sections I 5(2) and I 0-Criminal contempt of subordinate court-Suo motu cognizance by High Court-Permissibility of-Held: On proper E construction, sub-section (2) of section I 5 does not restrict power of High Court to take cognizance of and punish contempt of subordinate court on its own motion-Interpretation of statutes. Sections 17 and 2(c)-Criminal contempt-Procedure for convictionHeld: High Court has to decide contempt proceedings in a summary manner- F It must follow fair procedure and give fair and reasonable opportunity to the contemnors-On facts, Judicial Officer assaulted in a pre-planned and calculated manner in his court room and chambers by police officials not in uniform-Conviction on the basis of affidavit filed, High Court giving/air and reasonable opportunity to contemnors-Opportunity of cross-examination not G availed at appropriate stage-Thus, no fault could be found with the summary procedure adopted by High Court in conducting the proceedings-Sentence of simple imprisonment imposed on contemnors justified Investigating Officer was to be cross-examined in Sessions trial. All 113 H 114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. A means of securing his presence were exhausted but still he did not appear. Ultimately non-bailable warrant was issued but was of no avail. After about two months, he appeared before the court and was remanded to judicial custody. On his behalf bail petition was filed after the court hours and was placed for hearing on the next day. On the same day one. of the B office bearers of policemen's association went to the chamber~ of the Judicial Officer for release of the 1q ~ut it was declined. Next d~y when. the bail petition was taken up, .it was withdrawn. Thereafter, the police officials not in uniform, armed with lathis and other weapons attacked and manhandled the Judicial Officer in his courtroom and chamber and reiterated their demand for unconditional release of the IO. They also C attacked the court staff and some of the lawyers and also damaged furniture and motor vehicles parked in the court compound. Another Judicial Officer sent report of the incident to High Court. It included names of police officials who were identified. Criminal case was registered and also writ petition was filed by Lawyer's As$ociation. D E Primafacie case of criminal contempt was made out and proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were initiated against contemnors and also show cause notice were issued against them. The contemnors filed their detailed r'eplies. Director General of Police filed his independent report which disclosed names of nine officers found guilty for the alleged incident. State Government issued different orders and suspended all the officials from service. Thereafter, Commission of Inquiry was also set up. Apart from the departmental proceedings, different criminal cases were filed against them. Some of the senior police officials gave their statements and identified more names involved in the incident. Judicial officer involved, his staff and some of the lawyers also filed their affidavits. 26 F persons were issued show cause notices. Out of these persons except for one or two, the remaining asserted that they were not involved in the incident and for proof they attached their duty chart. High Court dropped the proceedings against contemnors other than the nine police officials ·~amed in DGP's report. K being the leader of the contemnors was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three month_s and remaining 8 were G sentenced to ~imple imprisonment for two months. It was made clear that the departmental proceedings initiated by State Government and criminal cases registered against them would not be affected by disposal of proceedings in the criminal contempt. Hence the present appeals. _. Appellants contended that the contempt alleged to have been H committed is of subordinate court which constitutes an offence under ~ DAROGA SINGH v. B.K. PANDEY 115 Section 228 IPC and as such the jurisdiction of High Court to take A cognizance of such case is expressly barred under proviso to Section 10 of the Act; that High Court cannot take suo motu notice of the criminal contempt of a subordinate court but only on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by Advocate General under section 15(2); that the charge of criminal contempt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by holding a trial; that the appellants were not B given reasonable and adequate opportunity either to defend themselves or put forward their case; that the witnesses were not examined in Court and also the appellants were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the persons who had deposed against them on affidavits; and that the High Court did not take into consideration affidavits of independent witnesses. C Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. For the survival of the rule of law the orders of the courts have to be obeyed and continue to be obeyed unless overturned, modified or stayed by the appellate or revisional courts. The court does not have D any agency of its own to enforce its orders. The executive authority of the State has to come to the aid of the party seeking implementation of the court orders. The might of the State must stand behind the Court orders for the survival of the rule of the court in the country. Incidents which undermine the dignity of the courts should be condemned and dealt with swiftly. When a judge is attacked and assaulted in his court room and E chambers by persons on whose shoulders lay the obligation of maintaining law and order and protecting the citizen against any unlawful act nee.ds to be condemned in the severest of terms. The effect of such an act is not confined to a particular court or a district, or the State; it has the tendency to effect the entire judiciary in the country. It is a dangerous trend. Such F a trend has to be curbed. For passing judicial orders to the annoyance of the police, if the presiding officers of the Courts are to be assaulted and humiliated the judicial system in the country would collapse. If judiciary has to perform its duties and functions in a fair and free manner, the dignity and the authority of the courts has to be respected and maintained at all stages and by all concerned failing which the very constitutional G scheme and public faith in the judiciary runs the risk of being lost. (136-G-H; 130-G-H; 131-A; 137-A, BJ 2. In the instant case, the Investigating Officer had appeared as a witness. His cross-examination was not concluded without which his H 116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A testimony was liable to be excluded from being read in evidence. Judge had exhausted practically all means for securing the presence of the witness. Even the threat of initiation of contempt proceedings did not deter him from abstaining. To secure his presence a non-bailable warrant had to be issued. He avoided the service of arrest warrant and appeared in the Court in the late hours. He was not apologetic and felt. that he was B above the process of the Court. It cannot be said that the higher authorities · of police were not aware of the behaviour of the IO. Either they knew about it or they should have known about it. Instead of offering the bail, the IO was busy managing for the Judge being approached or influenced by extra legal methods. He and his confederate decided to take the law in C their own hands and assault the Judge and anyone who came in their way. As such the appellants do not deserve any sympathy or .mercy. (120-G, H; 121-A, BJ 3.1. Criminal contempt defined under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is wide enough to include any act by a person which D would either scandalize the court or which would tend to interfere with the administration of justice. It would also include any act which lowers the authority of the Court or prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceedings. It is not limited to the offering of intentional insult to the Judge or interruption of the judicial proceedings, which is E made punishable under section 228 IPC. (130-A, BJ 3.2. In the instant case, a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge was attacked in a pre-planned and calculated manner in his courtroom and his chambers. The raising of slogans and demanding unconditional bail for the Investigating Officer further compounded the offence. Courts p cannot be compelled to give "command orders". The act committed amounted to deliberate interference with the discharge of duty of a judicial officer by intimidation apart from scandalizing and lowering the dignity of the Court and interference with the administration of justice. Therefore, it cannot be said that the alleged contempt committed of subordinate Court constituted an offence under section 228 IPC, and as such High Court is G precluded from taking cognizance of it under proviso to section 10 of the Act. [130-F-GJ Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. The State of Madras, [1952J SCR 425, followed. H State of Madhya Pradesh v. Revashankar, (1959] SCR 1367 and Arun DAROGA SINGH v. B.K. PANDEY 117 Paswan S./. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 10 SCALE 658, relied on. A / / Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors., [1991) 4 sec 406, referred to. 4. On proper construction of sub-section (2) of section 15, it does not restrict power of High Court to take cognizance of and punish B contempt of subordinate court, on its own motion. Hence, High Court could on its own motion take action of a criminal contempt against the appellants. Furthermore, apart from the report sent by the other Judicial Officer of the incident, Young Lawyers Association had also filed a writ petition. The Presidents of the three Bar Associations and Advocate General were present and were heard before initiating the proceedings C for the criminal contempt and they arrived at the conclusion that a prima facie case of criminal contempt was -made out against the contemners. This shows that the Advocate General of the State was also of the opinion that prima facie a case for initiation of proceedings for criminal contempt was made out and he was a consenting party to the initiation of the proceedings. D [133-E, F, G) S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue and U.P. Lucknow v. Vinay Chandra Misra, [1981) 1 SCC 436, relied on. 5.1. The procedure prescribed either under the Code of Criminal E Procedure or under the Evidence Act is not attracted to the proceedings initiated under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. high Court can deal with contempt matters summarily and adopt its own procedure. The only caution the Court has to observe while exercising this inherent power of summary procedure is that the procedure followed must be fair and the contemnors are made aware of the charges leveled against them and F given a fair and reasonable opportunity. Judge has to remain in full control of the hearing of the case and immediate action is required to be taken to restore order as early and quickly as possible. Dragging the proceedings unnecessarily would impede the speed and efficiency with which justice has ti be administered. [134-F, G; 135-D, E] G In re Vinay Chandra Mishra, [1995] 2 SCC 584, referred to. 5.2. In the instant case, though High Court had decided to proceed with the contempt proceedings in a summary manner but adequate safeguards were taken to protect the contemners' interest. The contemners H 118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) SUPP. I S.C.R. A were issued notices apprising them of the specific allegations made against them. They were given an opportunity to counter the allegations by filing their counter affidavits and additional counter/supplementary affidavits, affidavits of any other persons; and were also given opportunities to produce any other material in their defence, which they did not do. Most of the contemners took the plea that at the relevant time they were on B duty in their respective Police Stations and in support they attached copies of station diaries and duty chart. High Court did not accept the plea of alibi as all these papers had been prepared by the contemners themselves and none of the superior officer had supported such a plea. Another judicial Officer, Director General of Police, Superintendent of Police, the C judge who was attacked, two court's officials and some of the lawyers filed their reports with regard to the incident which confirmed the presence of the appellants. [134-H; 135-A-C] 5.3. High Court after verifying and cross-checking the entire evidence and material available on record including the evidence produced by the D contemners, coming from different reliabl" sources, affording due opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the contemners convicted only nine persons out of twenty six persons array~d as contemners before it. High Court has taken care not to convict a person unless direct evidence and/or circumstances with sufficient corroborative material doubtless E fastening guilt on the contemners who have been punished was available. Affidavit evidenc.e if based on hearsay has been excluded. Contemners against whom there was single identification ·were also·given the benefit of ~oubt. It w~s not necessary for the High Court to discuss each and every, affidavit individually. Thus the plea that the High Court did not take into consideration the affidavits of independent witnesses and that due F reasonable and adequate opportunity was not afforded to the appellants to defend themselves and put forth their point of view is not tenable. Therefore, there is ,no fault in the procedure adopted by High Court in conducting the proceedings. [138-D-F) 5.4. The submission that principles of natural justice were not G observed in as much as opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who had deposed on affidavits is concerned it may be stated that no such opportunity was asked for in the High Court at trial stage. It was for them to ask for such an opportunity t-0 cross-examine the parties who had deposed against them on affidavit. Since the contemners did not avail of H the opportunity at the trial stage the plea of non-observations of principles -- DAROGA SINGH v. B.K. PANDEY 119 of natural justice is not tenable. Furthermore, High Court in its order has A noted that the counsel appearing for both the parties have taken a stand that all possible fair and proper opportunities were extended to them. In view of such statements, at this stage the contemnors cannot take the stand that in. the absence of cross-examination of the concerned persons, relfance (Ould not be placed on the statements which were made on oath. B (137-C-D; 134-C-D] Arun Paswan S.l. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 10 SCALE 658, referred to. 6. It is unfortunate that neither the criminal proceedings nor. the disciplinary proceedings or the inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry C Act have been concluded. No doubt the appellants had been suspended initially but in due course they have been reinstated. Some of them have retired as well. Inaction on the part of the authorities resulted in emboldening others to commit similar acts. [139-B, C] Arun Paswan, S.l. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 10 SCALE 658, referred to. (The Court directed that the criminal proceedings, disciplinary. proceedings and the enquiry under the Commissions of Enquiry D Act should be concluded at the earliest; and that the proceedings E before criminal court which were kept pending awaiting decision of these appeals when there was no stay by High Court or this Court, be decided on the basis of evidence adduced in these casts.] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1998. F From the Judgment and Order dated 10.2.98 of the Patna High Court in original Crl. M.C. No. 24 of 1997. WITH Crl. A Nos. 317, 318, 332 and 396 of 1998 Ms. Meenakshi Arora (A.C.), M.P. Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy, Harshvardhan Jha, Anil K. Chopra, Amitesh Kumar, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Braj Kishbre Mishra, Ms. Aparna Jha, Ehaz Maqbool, Ramesh Singh, Ms. Rakhi Ray, Ms. I Bina Gupta, Ms. Divya Roy, S.K. Sinha, Ms. Sindbu Pratibha Jha, B.B. G Singh, Kumar Rajesh Singh and Ms. Sunita Pandit for the appearing parties. H 120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAN, J. The instant criminal appeals arising from a common judgment relating to the same incident, depict a rare, unfortunate and condemnable act of the police officials who contrary to the duty enjoined upon them to protect and maintain law and order, indulged in the act of attacking in a pre-planned B and calculated manner Shri D.N. Barai, Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, in his court room and Chambers on 18th November, 1997 at Bhagalpur in the State of Bihar. c Facts of the present case: . In Sessions trial No. 592 of 1992, the Investigating Officer (Jokhu Singh) was examined as a witness on 7th May, 1997 in the Court of Shri D.N. Barai, 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur. As tl;e cross-examination could not be concluded the case was adjourned to 26th May, 1997. Thereafter the case was adjourned to several dates but this witness D did not appear for the cross-examination. A show cause notice was issued against Jokhu Singh through Superintendent of Police, Madhepura, requiring him to appear on 11th June, 1997. In spite of that Jokhu Singh did not appear. On 14th July, 1997, a wireless message was sent to him through Superintendent of Police to appear in the court on 5th August, 1997. qpce again the witness did not tum up. The Court, therefore, having no other E option issued a notice to Jokhu Singh to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') be not initiated against him. Ultimately, on 27th August, 1997 the case was adjourned to 20th September, 1997 and to procure his presence, non-bailable warrant was issued. On this date also the witness did not tum up. He did not file reply F to the show cause notice either. On 17th November, 1997, Jokhu Singh' appeared in the court in the afternoon. Having regard to the previous order of non-bailable warrant of arrest, he was remanded to judicial custody. A petition for bail was filed on his behalf after the court hours. It was directed that the same be placed for hearing on the next date. G Shri K.D. Choudhary, one of the appellants who was an office bearer H of the Policemen's Association at District Level and was posted as SHO of the Police Station in the evening of the same day went to the Chambers of Shri Barai for release of Shri Jokhu Singh on execution of a personal bond: Shri Barai did not agree. Thereafter he approached the District Magistrate' and on the basis of his advice he met the District Judge and renewed his DAROGA SINGH v. B.K. P'A:NDEY [BHAN, J.] 121 demand for release of Jokhu Singh, which was declined. A On 18th November, 1997, when the bail petition of Jokhu Singh was taken up, the learned counsel appearing on his behalf made a prayer seeking withdrawal of the bail application. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. Soon thereater, a large number of police officers (without uniform), armed with lathis and other weapons and shouting slogans B against Shri Barai, barged into his court room. The court peon Shri Bishundeo Sharma who tried to shut the door was brutally assaulted. Shri Barai apprehending danger to his life, rushed to his Chambers and managed to bolt the door. Unruly mob forcibly broke open the door, overpowered the bodyguard and assaulted Shri Barai. They reiterated their demand for C unconditional release of Jokhu Singh. Due to the manhandling Shri Barai felt dizziness and became unconscious. It was due to timely arrival of a team of doctors that his life was saved. The police personnel after assaulting Shri Barai and his court staff, took away certain records and damaged the doors and grills of the gate. They I) also assaulted some of the lawyers and damaged their furniture and motor vehicles parked inside the court compound. Since at the relevant time the District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur had gone to Banka for holding camp court and Shri Barai was not in a position to send any report, the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge sent a report to the High Court narrating the incident. On the next day, on return from Banka, District & Sessions Judge :e also enquired into the matter and submitted a detailed report. In the report the names of police officials who were identified by the court staff, Shri Barai and the lawyers were also disclosed. They are (i) A. Natarajan, the then Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur (ii) Harihar Prasad Choudhary, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, (iii) K.D. Choudhary, the then F Inspector of Police, Kotwali P.S., (iv) Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, the then S.l., (v) Daroga singh, the then S.I. (vi) P.K. Singh, the then S.I., (vii) Rajib Rajan Dayal alias Bhagat, the then S.I., (viii) Gurubachan Singh, the then S.I., (ix) Krishna Ram, the then Inspector of Police, (x) C.D. Jha, the then A.S.I., (xi) K.N. Singh, the then Officer Incharge of Harijan P.S. Bhagalpur and (xii) Ranjit Pandey, the then Sergeant Major, Police Line, Bhagalpur. G On 19th November, 1997, on the basis of the report sent by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur dated 18th November, 1997, Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 1997 was registered and placed before a Bench of the High Court for admission. Along with the H 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. l S.C.R. A said case Civil Writ Petition C.W.J.C. No. 10625 of 1997 filed on behalf of the Young Lawyers' Association was also listed. On perusal of the report and after hearing the three Presidents of the High Court Associations and the Advocate General, the Court arrived at the conclusion that a prima facie case of criminal contempt was made out against the contemners. Accordingly B proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act were initiated and a direction was issued to the Registry to issue notices to the above referred persons along with a copy of the report, containing allegations against the concerned persons, calling upon them to show cause as to why suitable action be not taken against them for the alleged misconduct. The show cause' was made returnable by 25th November, 1997. The Chief Secretary and the Director C General of Police were directed to affirm on affidavits regarding the steps taken by the State Government in the matter relating to the incident. On 25th November, 1997, all the contemners appeared through their respective advocates. On a request made the hearing was postponed to I 0th December, 1997 to enable them to file their detailed replies to the show cause D notice. Chief Secretary filed his affidavit indicating that the Director Generalcum-Inspector General of Police after holding a detailed inquiry, had in his report, disclosed names of nine police officials namely (i) K.D. Choudhary, the then Officer Incharge, Kotwali, (ii) Ranjit Pandey, the then Sergeant Major, Bhagalpur, (iii) Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, the then S.I., (iv) K.B. Sin.~h, E the then Thana Incharge, Harijan P.S. Bhagalpur, (v) Gurubachan Singh, the then S.I., (vi) Daroga Singh, the then S.I., (vii) Prem Kumar Singh, the then S.I. (Officer Incharge Kajraili), (viii) Rajeev Ranjan Bhagar, the then S.I., and (ix) C.D. Jha, the then ASI Bhagalpur. The Director General of Police found the officers, named above, guilty p for the alleged incident and condemned the police officials for their act. It was also mentioned in the affidavit that the State Government, acting on the basis of the report of the Director General of Police, had issued different orders, suspending all such officials from service. Keeping in view the gravity of the situation, a Commission of Inquiry was also set up under the provisions of the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952. G Besides the departmental proceedings, different criminal cases were also lodged against them. On behalf of some of the contemners a request was made to keep the contempt matter in abeyance until the conclusion of the proceedings initiated H under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the departmental - - DAROGA SINGH v. B.K. PANDEY [BHAN, J.) 123 proceedings and the report of the Commission constituted under the A Commission of Inquiry Act. The request was declined by the High Court. It was held that the pendency of a criminal case or judicial inquiry could not constitute a bar to the continuation of the contempt proceedings. But before adjourning the proceedings to the next date and having noticed that all the contemners and their advocates were present and every body was condemning B the occurrence, the Court expressed the desire that some of the responsible officers like Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector of Police Kotwali Shri K.D. Choudhary and Sub-Inspector of Police Ms. Shashi Lata Singh and Sergeant Major of Police Line Ranjit Pandey should disclose details of the occurrence which had taken place in the court premises on 18th November, 1997 and if possible, identify more names of C such persons, who, according to them, had taken part at the time of occurrence. On the adjourned date of hearing, the Court recorded the statement of (i) A. Natarajan, the then S.P., (ii) Harihar Choudhary, the then DSP, (iii) K.D. Choudhary, the then Inspector of Police, Kotwali P.S., (iv) Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, the then S.I., and (v) Ranjit Pandey, the then Sergeat Major, Bha~alpur. D The Superintendent of Police in his statement fairly narrated a part of the incident and identified certain more names, like Awadhesh Singh, Subodh Kumar Yadav and Aswan, Vice-President of the Association who, according to him, had also taken part in the alleged assault. The court issued notices to these three persons also calling upon them to show cause why they be also not proceeded for the criminal contempt. The officials whose statements had E been recorded were directed to file their additional or supplementary replies to the show cause on the next date of hearing. On I 0th December, 1997, all the contemners appeared and filed additional or supplementary replies to show cause notice. The Superintendent of Police in his supplementary reply disclosed names of .14 more police: F officials and constables, who, as per his inquiry, had also taken part along with the main persons named earlier. They are (i) Ram Suresh Singh 'Nirala', SI, (ii) Sriram Singh, ASI, (iii) Ram Rekha Pandey, SI, (iv) Shivji Singh, SI, (v) B.N. Singh, ASI, Kotwali, (vi) Sukh Narain Sharma, SI, (vii) D.D. Singh Officer Incharge, Tatarpur P.S., (viii) Gopalji Prasad, SI, (ix) Madhusudhan G Sharma Ole Sultanganj P.S., (x) Awadesh Singh, Constable, (xi) Subodh Kumar Yadav, Constable, (xii) Ram Prakash Paswan, Constable, (xiii) Dilip Ojha, Treasure, Policemen's Association, Bhagalpur, and (xiv) Anil Kumat Soren, General Secretary, Policemen's Association. Notices were issued to the above-named persons as well along with H 124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. A copies of the report calling upon them to show cause ;by 8th January, 1998 as to why they be also ·not proceeded with the criminal contempt. On 9th January, 1998 all the contemners including those fourteen against whom notices were issued on 10th December, 1997 appeared and filed their replies to the show cause notice. B At the same time, affidavits were also filed on behalf of Shri Barai, 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur and his staff namely R. Das and B.Sharma and some of the lawyers of the Bhagalpur Court namely Shri M.P.Singh, President Bar Association, Bhagalpur; Shri Y.K. Rai, Secretary, Advocate Assiciation and S/Shri N.K. Choudhary, J.K.,Gupta (Secretary, Bar C Association), B.N. Mishra and S.C.Pandey, Advocates. Copies of the affidavits filed were served on their opposites on 16th January, 1998 all the learned advocates appearing for different parties fairly accepted that copies of all the material brought on the record so far was properly served on the advocates appearing for the contemners and those who were appearing in support of the contempt proceedings. D In response to the show cause all the contemners in their affidavits condemned the incident of assault on Shri Barai and the lawlessness created in the civil court campus, Bhagalpur. It would be relevant to notice that some of the contemners like Harihar Choudhary, DSP, K.D. Choudhary, inspector of Police and few others have tried to justify the act by saying t~at there was E a resentment amongst the police personnels for the arrest of Jokhu Singh and removal of stars from his uniform in the court. The reply of the Superintendent of Police also indicated that because of such steps taken ·by Shri Barai the Police Officers Association led by Shri K.D. Choudhary on 17th December, 1997 met the Inspector General (Prosecution) and the Zonal I.G. and protested F again$t the arrest of Jokhu Singh and the removal of stars. After showing their resentment these contemners also criticised the unfortunate incident and assault on Shri.Barai, and his staff but they denied their presence at the time of incident in the' court premises on 18th November, 1997. Show cause notice had been issued to 26 persons. Except for one or two the remaining asserted that they were not involved in the incident and were on duty elsewhere G at the relevant time. In proof of such defence they attached their duty chart etc. After considering the relevant evidence on the record, and after taking due care and caution to see that innocent persons are not punished the High H Court dropped the proceedings against the contemners other than Shri K.D. - DAROGA SINGH v. B.K. PANDEY [BHAN, J.] 125 Choudhary, Ms. Shashi Lata Singh, Daroga Singh, P.K. Singh, Rajib Ranjan A Bhagat (Dayal), Gurubachan Singh, C.D. Jha, K.N. Singh and Ranjit Pandey. Shri K.D. Choudhary was found to be the ring leader of the contemners and was imposed with the punishment of undergoing simple imprisonment for a period of three months and the remaining eight to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. It was made clear that the discharge of rule of contempt notice of the proceedings against the other seventeen B would not absolve them of their misconduct and guilt for their respective offences, if any. In other words, the departmental proceedings initiated by the State Government and the criminal cases registered against them would not be affected by the disposal of the proceedings in the criminal contempt. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, has fairly stated that neither the dep