Find a Lawyer

‑-S.403‑Double jeopardy, principle of‑Dismissal of complaint or discharge of accused‑Not an acquittal for purposes of S. 403, Cr. P. C.‑Second complaint on same facts where first complaint summarily dismissed or accused discharged ‑ Not barred l3ischarge or even acquittal‑Does not debar subsequent trial for offence under another quite distinct and different facts taking place subsequently.

‑ ‑ S. 3‑Contempt of Court‑Sessions Judge having no jurisdiction to try offence under Act‑Matter can only be referred to High Court for action‑Contempt proceedings against petitioner dropped on satisfaction of Court requiring no action‑Matter, held, could not be re‑opened on application of a party ‑‑[Contempt of Court].

‑ S.5o1‑A‑Quashment of proceedings‑‑Petitioner complained against for disregarding orders of Court and fur giving false information‑Bare denier of petitioner. We could not amount to giving false information of an offence but at best a statement show ing no offence committed at all‑Issuance of notice and continuance of proceedings, held, an abuse of process of Court in circumstances proceedings quashed.[Quashment of proceedings].

Rustam S. Sibhwa for Petitioner.

Naveed Shehryar Respondents.

Date of hearing: 12th February 1976.

This petition is made by Mian Akhtar Ali Inspector C. 1. A., Gujrat, under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for quashment of contempt proceedings, initiated by the learned Sessions Judge Gujrat, against the petitioner.

2. The facts as found from the record are that Ghulam Rasool and ff Abdul Halim respondents apprehended their arrest under section 411, P. C. and applied for an anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions judge granted them ad interim bail on 6‑5‑74 for a week till 13‑5‑74 when it was, discovered that the Robkar for summoning the record could not be issued and the bail was extended to 30‑5‑JY. In the meantime on 22‑5‑74 the respondents made an application to the Court that the petitioner had on 20‑5‑74 fully arrested them during the continuance of their bail and prayed for vitiating contempt proceedings against him. On that day the petitioner was enter Court who denied that the respondents were ever detained by him learned Sessions Judge proceeded to pass an order that section 5‑4, P. C. was the pigeon of the police inhere he would not like to interfere and that since the respondents no longer remained in police custody the b fore arrest was confirmed.

3. On 30‑5‑74, the same day the respondents moved another application against Akbar Ali A. S. I. Muhammad Aslam H. C., and the petitioner for contempt proceedings and for filing a complaint under section 20 , P. P. C. Notice was issued to the petitioner for 18‑0‑74 and then for .0‑7‑74. The case was pending for reply of the petitioner that on 20‑12‑74 the application of the respondents was dismissed for their default. On 20‑1‑75 another application was made by them for restoration of the proceedings almost on the same fact. This application is pending consideration of the learned Sessions Judge and the petitioner has moved for quashment of the proceedings.

4. It may be pointed out that the first application made by the res pondents on 22‑5‑74 is directed against the petitioner alone. In that it was stated that the petitioner had arrested the respondents two days before and by so doing he was guilty of contempt of Court. But when the petitioner was discharged after his denial of having done so, they made another applica tion in an improved form and accused the petitioner of making a false statement, and committing an offence under section 203, P. P. C. It was stated in the application that on 20‑5‑74 the respondents appeared before the petitioner at Gujrat in response to a message sent to them through Barkat Foot Constable and Aslam H. C. arrested them under the orders of the petitioner. They were carried by a van to Sadar Police Station where they were kept in wrongful confinement for two days by the order of Ch. Akhtar Ali A. S. I. Sadar in spite of the fact that Parwana was shown to them, According to them the Parwana was illegally withheld. An action was solicited for disregard of the orders of the Court and for making a false state ment under section 203, P. P. C. The subsequent application dated 20‑1‑75 contains the same facts.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sessions Judge did not have power to try a person for contempt of a matter which did not occur in his presence. It was a matter within the exclusive redaction of the High Court and the Sessions Judge should have if action was required referred the matter to High Court. According to him there could be no enquiry after an enquiry. He further contended that the facts brought out in the application did not constitute an offence under section 203, P. P. C.

6. The respondents were allowed bail arid till the time the order of bail was in force, petitioner or any other police officer did not have power to disregard it and arrest them in connection with the same offence. The abuse of the process of Court amounts to contempt. The police officer disregard ing the order of the Court even though it be only the result of over zeal in the execution of his duty is not to be viewed leniently. Once the respondents were protected by the Court from being arrested any interference in that respect by the petitioner which would bring into contempt the authority of the Court would amount in law to contempt. The respondents complained that in spite of the bail ranted to them the petitioner and some more persons prompt the respondents in illegal detention for two days. If established the barge was serious and the petitioner and his accomplices were liable to be "owed seriously. But all what the respondents allege is not the final word this allegation was categorically denied by the petitioner and in the 1umstancec the learned Sessions Judge required satisfaction whether or not true. It appears that he was satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner and he was discharged on 30‑5‑74. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the petition for contempt proceedings for reasons given in his detailed order of even date in bail application, 543 of 1974. Class Lahore 1 S. A. Waheed v. Mr. Mansoor Ahmed Ansari Magistrate 1^st Class, Lahore (P L D 1972 Lah. 458), an application for contempt is not strictly proceeding between the parties. The real party to such proceedings is the Court itself and it can pursue the matter in spite of the absence of an applicant if there are reasons to continue the contempt proceedings. It is therefore, clear that the Court is the sole Judge of its own sensitivity with regard to matters of contempt but the sensitivity is to be expressed protect the dignity of the Court and not provide an opportunity to litigants to avenge personal grievances, In view f the above rule, the learned Sessions Judge took up the matter on the report of the respondents and found that there was no need to proceed with against the petitioner arid the contempt proceedings were dropped. After once it was done there was no occasion for the Court to act again at the instance of one of the parties.

7. True, that the rejection of the application on 30‑5‑74 was no bar for the Court to take cognizance of the matter once again. Under section 403 of the Cr. P. C., it is only the acquittal of an accused person o1 an offence which bars the subsequent trial on the same facts and for the same offence, but the dismissal of a complaint or discharge of the accused is not an acquittal for the purpose of this section therefore, an enquiry on a second complaint on the same facts where the first complaint has been sum marily dismissed or the accused is discharged is not absolutely barred. In the same way even the acquittal, not to talk of discharge of a person on a charge does not debar a subsequent trial and conviction for any offence under another quite distinct and different facts. The petitioner could be dealt with for an offence complained of under section 203, P. P. C. which had not taken place at the time the first application was made.

8. It is also not disputed that the learned Sessions Judge did not have jurisdiction to try the offence under the Contempt of Court Act. But at the same time he definitely had jurisdiction to enquire whether or not in the circumstances and the facts of the case the offence was made out. He was well empowered to get himself satisfied whether the petitioner s conduct was an abuse of the process of Court and amounted to contempt. If it was so the matter could be referred to the High Court for action. But the jurisdic tion for punishing a contemner is a peculiar one where the Court combines in itself the role of a prosecutor and a Judge. The sole object of this jurisdiction is to enable the Court of law to vindicate its honour and to keep the fountain of justice free from obstruction and pollution. It is therefore, of justice of the utmost importance that the Court proceeding in the matter should apply its own mind to the facts of the case and satisfy itself that a prima facie case for contempt has been made out. The Court has therefore, sot to provide as opportunity to the litigants to satisfy their own vanity In the circumstances the learned Sessions Judge had once been satisfied that too action of contempt was required he should not have reopened the matter on the application of the respondents.

9. The most important question which arises in this case is the disparity of allegation in both the applications. In the former, it was only the petitioned who was accused of disobedience of the order but in the subsequent application there appears to be a substantial improvement and a material departure of true facts. The discrepancy; by itself furnished a sufficient substance to get a satisfaction is favour of the petitioner. In view the description of facts tote renewed action was not warranted.

10.The question whether or not the offence under section 203, P. P.C. was made out from out from the facts as laid down by the respondents in their application requires a cursory view. Section 203, P. P. C, deals with giving false information respecting an offence committed. On an application' by the respondent, the denial of the petitioner would not amount made to giving a false information of an offence committed. It would at the best be that is statement made showing that no offence was at all committed. In the circumstances there was no offence made out under section 203, P.P.C. which required inquiry. Issue of a notice in this behalf and continuants in his respect in abuse of the process of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice the proceedings required to be quashed.

11. For the reason aforementioned the petition is allowed and the proceedings the petition is allowed and proceedings initiated by the respondents for contempt and complaint under section 203, P.P.C. are quashed for with. No order as to costs.

Proceedings quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.