R.S. Garg, J.
1. This reference under Section 15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, has been made by the Judicial Magistrate First class, Dabra (Gwalior) for drawing contempt proceedings against Chandrabhan Singh, Station House Officer, Billuoa at present posted as Sub-Inspector Murar, District Gwalior.
2. The facts in nut-shell are that on 15-4-98 one Matadeen made an application to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class that the Station House Officer of Police Station, Billuoa within the jurisdiction of the Court had wrongly detained his two sons namely; Mahesh and Suresh for more than seven days. A report was called from the S.H.O. on 16-4-98. Respondent Chandrabhan Raghuvanshi submitted to the Court that Mahesh and Suresh were not kept in detention nor were in the lock up of the said police station. Relying upon the affidavit of Matadeen, the said Judicial Magistrate First Class, issued a search warrant. The said search warrant was given to Shri Anil Parsowal, Advocate for its execution. The said Advocate went to make the enquiries and found that Mahesh son of Matadeen was lodged in the lock up of the police station. The said Advocate, after executing the warrant brought Mahesh son of Matadeen in the Court of V.S. Patidar, Judicial Magistrate First Class on 17-4-98 where the statements of Mahesh, Suresh and of constable Om Prakash of Police Station, Billuoa were recorded. At the time of the execution of the warrant, Mahesh was found in the lock up, while Suresh was found staying outside the lock up but within the police station premises. According to the reference, 505 entries were found in the daily Rojnamcha but entry relating to lodgment of Mahesh was missing. Mahesh stated in the Court that he was kept in the lock up since 8-4-98. The fact that Mahesh was found in lock up was stated by constable Om Prakash.
3. According to the reference, the respondent/contemner Chandrabhan Raghuvanshi purposely submitted the false report to the Court and thereby committed contempt of the lawful authority of the Court and caused hindrance in the due administration of justice.
4. Copies of the documents and the statements etc., were supplied to the respondent and his explanation was sought. The contemner submitted his unconditional apology before the Lower Court but however did not deny the material facts. The learned Judicial Magistrate finding the explanation to be dissatisfactory, referred the matter to this Court alongwith the report of Chandrabhan dated 16-4-98, report on the search warrant, statement of Mahesh, show-cause notice issued to the respondent and reply of the respondent. The reference was received in the High Court on 16-11-98. On 16-11-98, this Court issued notice to the respondent calling upon him to appear in person and show-cause as to why he be not punished for committing contempt of the Court. This Court also directed that alongwith the notice, a copy of the reference be also annexed. The contemner alongwith his counsel Shri A.K. Shrivastava appeared in the Court on 26-10-99. Finding that there was a typographical mistake in describing the respondent, this Court ordered that the correct description of the respondent be given by substituting Chandrabhan Singh Raghuvanshi in place of Rudrabhan Raghuvanshi, On 16-11-99, the respondent submitted his reply alongwith seven documents and his own affidavit. Before anything could be done in the matter, under the covering letter No. 3488 dated 16-11-99 received in the High Court on 17-11-99, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior submitted the memorandum/letter No. 553 dated 1-11-99 sent by the said Judicial Magistrate First Class/Second Civil Judge Class II, Dabra Shri Pradeep Mittal to this Court. In the aforesaid letter dated 1-11-99, Shri Pradeep Mittal, Second Civil Judge, Class II, Dabra reported to this Court that on 1-11-99, respondent Chandrabhan Raghuvanshi came in his Court room when he was busy in conducting C.S. No. 310-A/94 (Gomabai v. Prem Narain). According to the complaint, respondent was shouting in the Court and threatened the Court that by registering the contempt matter, judge has not done good, he had come back to police station Pichora, and would sec the Judge; he had set right the Magistrates. On this, according to the complaint, the learned Judge requested the respondent to conduct himself properly and use proper language, on which, showing utter in difference the respondent left the Court by intimidating the Judge. Every body present in the Court including the staff was stunned by his behaviour. With the complaint, learned Judge had annexed true copies of the proceedings dated 1-11-99 recorded in C.S. No. 310-A/94 (Gomabai v. Prem Narain) wherein the learned Judge in presence of the plaintiff's Advocate Shri M.P. Sharma had recorded the incident. On 1-11-99 the learned Judge recorded the statement of Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava, Court Reader. The said Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava on oath supported the allegations made by the learned Judge. Nathu Singh Kuchwaha, the deposition writer was also examined by the learned Judge and he also supported the incident.
5. On 12-1-2000 when the matter came up for hearing before this Court, this Court finding the complaint dated 1-11-99 in the records directed that copy of the letter dated 1-11 -99 alongwith three annexures be supplied to the counsel representing the contemner. This Court asked the respondent to file additional reply supported by an affidavit. On 7-2-2000 the respondent filed his additional reply alongwith five documents and his own affidavit. The matter was listed for hearing on 17-2-2000 but as the hearing could not be concluded, it was directed to be listed on 18-2-2000. On 18-2-2000, the respondent/contemner submitted an application alongwith his own affidavit and documents that for the incident dated 17-4-98 and 1-11-98, he was tendering unconditional apology. He also submitted that on 17-2-2000 he had submitted an application in the Court of Shri Pradeep Mittal alongwith his own affidavit inter-alia submitting that he was tendering unconditional apology from the core of his heart and also assured the Court that nothing shall be repeated in future.
6. We have heard the parties at length and have perused the complete record including the original inward register and Dak Book of police station Antri, which were submitted in the Court on 18-2-2000.
7. From the report dated 16-4-98 submitted by the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra it would appear that the respondent was asserting that Suresh and Mahesh were not arrested by him nor were in custody. It is not in dispute before us that the said report dated 16-4-98 was submitted by the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. It is also not in dispute before us that on 17-4-98 Shri Anil Parsowal armed with the search warrant came to the police station Billuoa and took search of the police station. It is also not in dispute before us that on 17-4-98 said Mahesh was found in the lock up and Suresh was found outside the lock up but within the premises of the said police station. It is not in dispute before us that the said Advocate shri Parsowal submitted his report to the Court on 17-4-98 and Mahesh was examined by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 17-4-98 itself.
8. It is not in dispute that on 7-7-98 a show cause notice was issued to respondent Chandrabhan Raghuvanshi to submit his reply to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.
9. According to the report of Shri Parsowal in the evening of 17-4-98 at about 6.25 he reached the police station Billuoa. In the premises of police station he found Suresh son of Matadeen and his counsel Shri D.K. Shrivastava. He was informed by Suresh that his brother Mahesh was kept in the lock up. He went to lock up and found one man lodged in the said lock up. On inquiry from the said man, he was informed that he was Mahesh son of Matadeen, resident of Antri. He also informed Shri Parsolwal that S.H.O. Shri Chandrabhan Raghuvanshi had kept him in the lock up for last 10 days and he was being manhandled. Shri Parsolwal went to Head Constable, Moharir Shri Omprakash Arya inspected the Rojnamcha and also showed him the search warrant issued by the Court. On inspection of the Rojnamcha, said Shri Parsolwal found existence of 505 entries in the Rojnamcha. In that Rojnamcha, Shri Parsolwal recorded his presence. According to the report, Shri Parsolwal gave the letter to Head Constable Moharir Shri Om Prakash Arya that he should accompany him with the detenu Mahesh and also take the Rojnamcha for being produced in the Court and after opening the lock up Mahesh son of Matadeen be given in the custody of Shri Parsolwal or in the alternative keys of the lock up be given to him so that detenu Mahesh is taken in custody and produced before the Court. The said Om Prakash Arya after receiving the letter agreed to come to the Court with the detenu Mahesh and for production of the Rojnamcha. This part of the report has been signed by Shri Parsolwal, Shri D.K. Shrivastava, Suresh and one more person whose signatures are illegible. In the second part of the said report, it is recorded that said Om Prakash Arya asked the Constable No. 1242 Janved Singh to bring out Mahesh son of Matadeen from the lock up. Thereafter said constable brought Mahesh. This part of the report is signed by Shri Parsolwal. Thereafter the third part states that after preparing the Panchnama and surrendering the keys of the lock up, said Shri Parsolwal, Om Prakash Arya and the detenu Mahesh proceeded towards the Court. The Panchnama dated 17-4-98 says that on 17-4-98 at about 17.15 from the lock up detenu Mahesh son of Matadeen was brought out. On 17-4-98 itself statements of Mahesh were recorded. He stated before the Court that on 8-4-98 he was taken in custody by Narendra Sharma, S.H.O. of Police Station Antri and he kept him at Police Station Antri. Station House Officer Shri Raghuvanshi manhandled and beaten him severely at police station Antri and took him to police station Billuoa. According to the statements he was taken to police station Billuoa on 12/13th April and since then till date i.e., 17-4-98 he was kept in lock up of police station Billuoa and was beaten. The said Raghuvanshi called his brother Suresh at Police Station Billuoa on 13th. The said Suresh was also beaten. Suresh was asked to bring Rs. 10,000/- from his house. He was also intimated that if the money was not brought he would be shot in an encounter. The statements further say that the food was not supplied regularly. The statements also say that at about 6-6.15 his brother Suresh, Advocate Devendra Shrivastava and one more counsel came to the police station therefore, he was brought before the Magistrate. He reported pains in the body.
10. On 7-7-98, a notice was issued to the respondent as to why the matter be not referred to the High Court under Section 15(2) of the Act. It is note-worthy that in reply to the show- cause, present respondent Chandrabhan did not deny the allegations either made in the report or by Shri Parsolwal or the allegations made against him in the statements of Mahesh but simply submitted to the Court that he was a sincere officer and was respectful to the Court and he never thought of committing contempt of the lawful authority of the Court. In reply, he tendered unconditional apology for the lapses committed by him. He also submitted that the honour of the Court is above all and he be exempted and the proceedings be dropped.
11. It is note-worthy that when Mahesh was recovered from the lock up of Police Station Billuoa neither Head Constable Om Prakash nor Janved Singh informed Shri Parsolwal that said Mahesh was kept in lock up under the directions of the S.H.O. of Police Station Antri because of the emergency and exigency. It is also note-worthy that in the reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, the respondent did not say a single word challenging the correctness of the allegations made against him. He simply submitted his apology and prayed for exemption.
12. In reply to notice dated 16-11-99 the respondent has submitted a return running in as many as 8 pages with 5 documents. In the return it is submitted by the respondent that Mahesh son of Matadeen was arrested in connection with Crime No. 54/98 pertaining to Section 379 IPC regarding the theft of electric wire. He was arrested by the Police Station Antri on 17-4-98 at 9.00 A.M.. The information under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. was sent to concerning Magistrate by Police Station Antri. Copy of the inward register and the information of arrest are annexed with the reply at Annexure R-1 & R-1/A. It is also submitted that said Mahesh gave information in respect of the stolen property thus the Station House Officer, Antri with staff members proceeded to recover the stolen articles which were lying in village Billuoa. From house of Mahesh about 150 metre stolen wire was seized at Antri and the remaining stolen articles jointly possessed by Mahesh and co-accused Jagdish were to be recovered from the house of Jagdish Kushwah. The Station House Officer, Antri, Mahesh and other staff members proceeded for Billuoa at 5.00 P.M. but when they reached in between Tiraha (three road junction) of Billuoa and P.S. Billuoa, some informant informed the said S.H.O. that gang of Raghubar dacoit was present in the jungle of Alinagar Jaurisi. As a case of double murder stood registered against the gang of Raghubar at Police Station Antri at Crime No. 51/98, after receiving the information S.H.O. Antri, went to Police Station Billuoa, handed over accused Mahesh to constable Janved Singh and directed him to make relevant entry in general diary of Police Station Billuoa. After handing over the accused Mahesh to said constable Janved Singh, S.H.O. Antri alongwith his staff proceeded towards jungle of Alinagar Jaurisi, but on way he met the respondent. S.H.O, Antri, informed the respondent about the presence of the gang therefore, the non-applicant also went with him. In support of this contention, coy of the general diary of Police Station Antri has been submitted. The non-applicant submits that after he came back, from the said patrol at about 10.00 P.M. he was informed by constable Janved Singh that somebody who introduced himself as Magistrate came to the Police Station and took away accused Mahesh, Respondent says and submit that he left the Police Station Billuoa at 11.10 A.M. for discharging different official duties. In support of his contention, he has filed copy of the general diary at Annexure R-3. The respondent submits that the circumstances in which Mahesh was found at Police Station Billuoa were not within his knowledge and therefore, no wrong can be found with the conduct of the respondent.
13. In parawise reply he has submitted that he never arrested Mahesh and Suresh and did not keep them in custody. According to him the averment of Mahesh was false because the Court Commissioner did not find Suresh in confinement. Admitting the fact that Mahesh was found in lock up, he further submitted that in typical circumstances said Mahesh was found in the lock up. He also submits that Mahesh was not arrested by him but as he was left by Narendra Sharma, S.H.O. Antri, at Police Station Billuoa, he was found at Police Station Billuoa. He also submits that because of some lapses or clerical fault of Head Constable Moharir Om Prakash the relevant entry of handing over of Mahesh could not be made in the Rojnamcha for which the respondent cannot be held liable. It is also submitted by him that statements of Mahesh could not be relied upon. The copy of the statement of Head Constable Moharir Om Prakash was not supplied to him. According to him he did not supply any false information to the Court nor committed any contempt nor had caused any obstruction in due administration of justice. According to him a show-cause notice bearing No. 419 dated 7-7-98 was served upon him. According to him he had submitted the reply to the show-cause notice No. 419 which was wrongly treated to be reply of second notice No. 420. According to him, reply to the second show-cause notice was submitted under Annexure R-5. Copy of register by which Annexure R-5 was sent to the learned Magistrate is filed at Annexure R-5 and copy of the register under which Annexure R-5 was received in the Court at Annexure R-5-A. Reiterating his submissions in the alternative, he has submitted his unconditional apology.
14. Before coming to the second part of the dispute, we would like to dispose of this issue. Undisputedly, there is no entry in the Rojnamcha of Police Station Billuoa that custody of Mahesh son of Matadeen was handed over to Constable Janved Singh. Undisputedly, the Head Constable Moharir or any other did not make any entry in the Rojnamcha of Police Station Billuoa that Mahesh son of Matadeen was lodged in the lock up. It is unthinkable that one man can be lodged in the lock up by some constable without the knowledge of the Head Constable Moharir or the other Head Constable or other constables who are present at the Police Station. It is also not in dispute that under Rojnamcha No. 505 recorded at 9.45 p.m. return of Head Constable Om Prakash is recorded. According to said Rojnamcha, said Om Prakash was informed by Lakhanram that Mahesh son of Matadeen was lodged in the lock up by S.H.O. Antri. Rojnamcha No. 511 was recorded at 10 p.m. by S.H.O. Antri who recorded in the Rojnamcha of Police Station Billuoa that he had handed over the custody of Mahesh s/o Matadeen to constable Janved Singh. Rojnamcha No. 512 of Police Station Billuoa is written by S.H.O. of Police Station Billuoa, the present respondent.
15. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that he did not know about anything and he had left the Police Station early morning cannot be accepted. Rojnamcha Sanha No. 498 of 17-4-98 records that the respondent left the Police Station for execution of certain warrants. The fact would not wash off the further facts that he was present in the Police Station.
16. Rojnamcha No. 505 is recorded by Head Constable Moharir Om Prakash. Said Head constable came from Dabra alongwith the Rojnamcha. According to this Rojnamcha No. 505 said Head Constable Moharir Om Prakash when came back from the house/Court of Patidar Saheb he was informed by Head Constable Rajendra Singh that Mahesh s/o Matadeen was brought by S.H.O. Antri (Shri Sharma) and as the matter was urgent said S.H.O. Antri left Mahesh Jogi in custody of Janved Singh. Rojnamcha Sanha No. 511 is written by S.H.O. Antri (Narendra Sharma). According to him, he started from Police Station Antri for making certain recoveries and when he came to a three road junction near Police Station Billuoa he was informed by an informer that certain miscreants were taking shelter in the forest of Alinagar Jourisi. According to him, he left Mahesh in custody of constable Janved Singh, thereafter he met S.H.O. Billuoa, informed him of the facts and thereafter took said S.H.O. Billuoa and went in search of the wrong doers. On his return he was informed by Head Constable Om Prakash and another constable that Mahesh was taken away from the lock up, was produced before Patidar Saheb and was released. Rojnamcha No. 512 is written by the respondent at 10.05 p.m. According to him, on his way to the Police Station, S.H.O.. Antri met him, informed him that certain miscreants were hiding in the forest and he left Mahesh at Police. Station. In the said Rojnamcha No. 512 he does not say that alongwith S.H.O. Antri he was in search of the said persons.
17. From the above Rojnamcha Nos. 505, 511 and 512 which all are recorded within twenty minutes, it would appear that Head Constable Moharir Om Prakash, S.H.O. Antri and S.H.O. Billuoa recorded everything and created the story that Mahesh was brought to Police Station Billuoa, was left in custody of Janved Singh who did not make any mention in the records of the Police Station. The fact remains that everything was recorded after 9.45 p.m. i.e., subsequent to recovery of Mahesh, after he was released and Head Constable Moharir Om Prakash had come back to Police Station Billuoa.
18. In support of the reply, the respondent has submitted that in relation to Crime No. 54/98 for commission of which Mahesh was arrested on 17-4-98, he had sent the information to the concerned Magistrate. The inward, outward registers at Police Station Antri at entry Nos. 565 and 566 does show the entry relating to arrest in relation to Crime No. 54/98. A perusal of entry No. 565 would show that it was made on 18-4-98 and later on was made to appear as entry dated 17th, immediately thereunder entry No. 566 find place. No explanation is forthcoming from anybody as to why the interpolations have been made in relation to entry No. 565. Entry No. 562 appears to be of 17-4-98. Entry Nos. 563 and 564 do not have the dates but have 'ditto' marks. Nobody says as to why in place of 'ditto' marks the dates were required to be written. Rojnamcha Entry No. 468 of Police Station Antri was recorded at 12.05. According to this entry S.H.O. Police Station Antri had recovered 150 metre wire, accused Mahesh was arrested, memorandum was prepared and the goods were seized. This entry recorded at 12.05 would run contrary to Annexure R-1; the arrest memo prepared by S.H.O. Antri. According to the said arrest memo the man was arrested at 9.00 a.m.. If the fact is correct that he was arrested at 9 a.m. then the Rojnamcha No. 468 is false because it records that the accused Mahesh was arrested at 12.05. Entry No. 461 is of 8 a.m.. It does not say that accused Mahesh was arrested. Entry No. 462 does not say that accused Mahesh was arrested. According to the arrest memo, the accused was arrested at 9 a.m.. If the fact is correct that he was arrested at 9 a.m. and thereafter S.H.O. Antri Narendra Sharma left for seizure of the goods then the fact would certainly find place in Rojnamcha maintained by Police Station Antri. Rojnamcha No. 468 would further show that it is written not only in the place mentioned for writing but runs below it up to the point where the paper finishes. The accused Mahesh, according to the S.H.O. Antri was kept at Police Station Antri upto 5 p.m. and thereafter he proceeded towards Police Station Billuoa. A perusal of the photo copy of Rojnamcha No. 474 would clearly show that first three lines of said Rojnamcha are in bold letters while the last two lines are in small letters. There is no good reason for S.H.O. Antri to record the same information in two types of letters. The fact that S.H.O. Antri proceeded to village Billuoa is not to be found in the first three lines but is to be seen in last two lines which apparently are in the small letters. Rojnamcha Sanha No. 480 of Police Station Antri is again written by S.H.O. Narendra Sharma. According to him, alongwith Mahesh Jogi he proceeded towards Billuoa but on the three road junction he was informed by an informer that certain murderers/miscreants were hiding in Alinagar Jaurisi on which he went to Police Station Billuoa. He offered custody of Mahesh Jogi to Constable Janved Singh and immediately proceeded to the forest. The total report does not say that he found any other Head Constable or any other person at the Police Station. This report he had written after coming back from Police Station Billuoa. The Rojnamcha No. 480 says that he informed S.H.O. Billuoa that he gave the custody of Mahesh to the constable. These Rojnamchas of Police Station Antri would clearly show that he started at about 5 p.m. from Police Station Antri and on way met S.H.O. Billuoa. Neither S.H.O. Billuoa the present contemner nor S.H.O. Antri Narendra Sharma say even a single word as to when they met on way. It cannot be lost sight of that Shri Anil Parsolwal reached Police Station Billuoa at about 6.25 p.m.. If at 6.25 p.m. nobody was ready to tell that S.H.O. Antri gave custody of Mahesh to Janved Singh then it has to be presumed that S.H.O. Billuoa is telling lies and in fact the entire defence is subsequently cooked up.
19. According to respondent, the reply annexed with the reference was in fact reply to the Notice No. 419 and not 420. It appears that Notice Nos. 419 and 420 were issued on 7-7-98. In both of the notices the replies were sought by 1-7-98. In Notice No. 419, the respondent was required to show-cause that why he did not appear in the Court on 17-4-98 and why his matter be not referred to the High Court. In Notice No. 420 he was required to show cause that why proceedings under provisions of Contempt of Court be not referred to the High Court as he had submitted the wrong report to the Court regarding arrest and lodgement of said Mahesh. The reply annexed with the reference does not bear any date. The reply Annexure R-5 bears the date as 23-7-98. In support of the submission that he had sent the reply to Notice No. 420, the respondent had relied upon Annexure R-5A, the register of letters issued. The respondent has not filed any document to show that the reply annexed with the reference was also sent after making its entry in the register of letters issued. We fail to understand as to how a reply to show-cause notice could be submitted by S.H.O. Billuoa after making its entry in the register of letters. It was a notice to show-cause and ordinarily it could not be sent under the 'dak'. The entry of letter No. 1243 is to be seen in the delivery book. The delivery book shows all interpolations, deletions etc. in relation to the said number and other numbers. Item No. 1243 is to be found in the last. The manner in which S.H.O. Billuoa is making the entries would clearly show that he was preparing a false and forged documents. We are not ready to believe that letter No. 1243 was sent on 23-7-98 to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra. It appears that all these entries have been later on concocted to raise the defence before the Court that the unconditional apology submitted before the Court was in fact in response to Notice No. 419 and not in response to Notice No.
420. We are not convinced with the submission made by the respondent/contemner. It would rather appear that the respondent Station House Officer, Antri and the others concocted false and forged documents to submit the false explanation to the High Court that Mahesh s/o Matadeen was arrested for the first time on 17th and not before that.
20. So far as the second notice is concerned, it would appear from the complaint that on 1-11-99 the respondent appeared in the Court, misbehaved with the Judge, intimidated him and threatened the Judge that he would be set-right. The fact is supported by the proceedings dated 1-11-99 recorded at 1.55 p.m. in Civil Suit No. 310-A/94 (Goma Bai v. Prem Narayan) in presence of M.P. Sharma, Advocate. The fact is also supported by the statements of Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava the Reader of the said Court and Nathu Singh Kushwaha the deposition writer of the said Court. What transpired in the Court was bad but the reply to the show-cause notice adds insult to the injury.
21. In Paragraph 3, the respondent has written as under :--
3. That, the Presiding Officer Shri Mittal bore personal enmity with the respondent on account of following facts :--
(i) That, when the respondent was posted at Billuoa as Station House Officer in the month of Feb., 1998 Shri Pradeep Mittal learned Presiding Officer was posted at Dabra as Civil Judge and Magistrate First Class. The Police Station Billuoa was under his jurisdiction. He directed respondent to provide a jeep for going to his native place Shivpuri for a period of 4 days with full diesel and driver free of cost, the respondent did arrange the jeep and driver but diesel came to an end little before Shivpuri and When applicant came back to Dabra he became annoyed and said that why tank of jeep was not filled.
(ii) In the year 1997 once the applicant was coming from Shivpuri to Dabra via; Gwalior in the bus of Janta Bus Service the conductor of the bus realized the fare from him, the applicant became annoyed with the conductor and after arrival at Dabra he directed respondent to seize the bus in the Police Station of respondent so that in case application to release the bus is filed before him he will teach them a lesson, the respondent could not satisfy the directions as they were beyond his duties.
Para 4 reads as under :--
4. That, the learned Presiding Officer on account of the above mentioned facts and on account of malice, had initiated the another contempt proceedings against the respondent which are pending.
22. A perusal of Para 3 would show that taking an exception to the reference made by the complainant the respondent started asserting that the Judge bore personal enmity with the respondent. It is unfortunate that the respondent is levelling such allegations almost after three months of the incident. He does nowhere say that why he did not inform about the wrong/misdeeds of Shri Mittal either to his officers or to the District Judge or any other officer that Shri Mittal was asking him to do the illegal works or was seeking personal favours. When the facts are reported after two or three years that too in reply to a notice of contempt they would suddenly loose their credibility.
23. According to the respondent, the Presiding Officer on account of malice had initiated the contempt proceedings. According to him, he had gone to the Court of Mr. Mittal in. connection with some Court work, Shri Mittal asked him as to why he did enter in the Court without being called whereupon he stated that he come there on account of some official work. In support of this submission he has relied upon Annexure R-6. A perusal of Annexure R-6 would show that he was not required to appear as a witness in the Court of Shri Mittal. According to him, at the time of the alleged meeting number of lawyers were present in the Court. According to him, Shri M.P. Sharma, Virendra Thakur, S.P. Sharma, J.S. Parihar, Mahesh Dubey and number of litigants were present in the Court. According to him, the Presiding Officer Shri Mittal had sent a copy of the complaint to the Inspector General of Police, who in his turn directed for departmental enquiry. In the said enquiry statements of number of witnesses were recorded. He has produced those statements at Annexure R-8 collectively. He has relied upon the statements of as many as 12 persons which were recorded on 24-11-99, 26-11-99 and 27-11-99. These 12 statements do not contain the statements of the complainant Shri Mittal. Not even a single document has been produced in the Court to show that the Inspector General of Police ever authorised the S.D.O. (P) to record the statements of the witnesses. Nobody knows as to how said S.D.O. (P) came to know about the names of the witnesses. If these statements were recorded in the departmental enquiry then copy of the charge-sheet or such relevant documents could be filed. If these statements were recorded in a preliminary enquiry such an order could be produced in the Court to show that these statements were recorded in the preliminary enquiry.
24. Shri M.P. Sharma, who had appeared as a lawyer in Civil Suit No. 310-A/94 (Goma Bai v. Prem Narayan), according to the statements recorded by S.D.O. (P) did not witness anything which was bad or wrong. Unfortunately, the S.D.O. (P) did not require Shri Sharma to say a single word that if nothing happened in the Court then why he did not raise any objection when the proceedings were being recorded in the suit in his presence. The S.D.O. (P), assuming he was making some preliminary enquiry, did not enquire from Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava and Nathu Singh Kushwaha. It appears that the S.D.O. (P), without any authority of law has recorded the statements of those persons. It is to be seen from the reply of the respondent that he was ready and willing to make the allegations of malice against the Presiding Officer. The respondent in the opinion of this Court did not conduct himself properly. The manner in which he behaved in the open Court would certainly show that he did not care for the authority of the Presiding Officer and was in fact taking an exception to the actions of the Presiding Officer Shri Mittal, that his case was wrongly referred to the High Court. We are sorry to record that the respondent who claims to be in services for more than 16 years did not conduct himself properly in the Court and in his zeal to malign the Presiding Officer has levelled false allegations against him, in support of which he does not have any evidence in his favour. The nature of allegations made by him clearly show that to malign the officer he can go to any extent. If this is his conduct in the High Court then one would not be wrong in holding that he did not conduct or behave properly in the Court of Shri Mittal.
25. The facts would show that the respondent firstly submitted a false reply to the Court that Mahesh s/o Matadeen was not lodged in his Police Station. He after finding that Mahesh was recovered from his Police Station with the help and assistance of his own Head Constable Moharir Om Prakash and Narendra Sharma, S.H.O. Antri created false records despite knowing that he was recording wrong informations. After concocting and manufacturing the false entries with the help and assistance of Head Constable Moharir Om Prakash and S.H.O. Narendra Sharma he used the same in the Court proceedings. The manner in which he behaved disentitles him from being exempted. So far as the second incident is concerned we are not ready and willing to accept that he did not appear in the Court nor misbehaved with the Presiding Officer. We have no reason to disbelieve the proceedings recorded in the Civil Suit and the statements of the witnesses. The defence raised by the respondent is false and is false to his own knowledge.
26. It would be necessary to note at this stage that the respondent has submitted an unconditional apology under his application and affidavit dated 18-2-2000. According to him, the similar application and affidavit had been filed by him before the Magistrate First Class. The submission of these letters and unconditional apology are not acceptable. In these applications he did not speak even a single word about his own conduct and the allegations of malice made against the Magistrate Shri Mittal.
27. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances the conduct of the respondent, the manner in which he manufactured and created forged documents and behaved in the Court we are not ready and willing to accept the apology tendered and submitted by the respondent.
28. After finding him guilty we are of the opinion that he deserves deterent punishment so that in future it serves as an example to the people who are readily creating false records and may also work as an example against all such persons who try to undermine the authority of a judicial officer and are very conveniently levelling allegations of malice etc.. We convict the respondent and award him three months simple imprisonment. The respondent shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior within one month from today. After his surrender he shall immediately be sent to jail for undergoing the sentence. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior who on surrender of the respondent shall take him in custody and send him to jail for undergoing the sentence. If the respondent does not surrender within the period aforesaid then the Chief Judicial Magistrate on expiry of 30 days shall issue non-bailable warrants against the respondent for taking him in custody.
29. While disposing of this petition we direct the Registry to register a case against Station House Officer, Antri Shri Narendra Sharma, Head Constable Moharir Om Prakash of Police Station Billuoa for helping and assisting the respondent in manufacturing and creating false and forged documents knowing well that the same would be used in the Court. Notices be also issued to the then Inspector General of Police, Gwalior and S.D.O. (P), Dabra as to why without permission of the Court/High Court they proceeded with the enquiry into the conduct of a Judge. These persons be issued notice, to show-cause, as to why they be not punished for committing contempt of the lawful authority of the Court by creating false and forged documents and by interfering with the Court of Justice.
