Delhi Judicial Service Association Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Appeal: Writ Petition (Crl.) No.517 of 1989

Petitioner: Delhi Judicial Service Association Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.

Respondent: State of Gujarat & Ors.

Apeal: Writ Petition (Crl.) No.517 of 1989

Judges: K.N. SINGH, KULDIP SINGH & N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.

Date of Judgment: Sep 11, 1991

CRIMINAL LAW

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:

Section 2(a) and 2(c) – Criminal contempt – Definition wide enough to include any act by a person which would tend to interfere with the administration of justice or which would lower the authority of the court. (Paras 41 and 42)

What constitutes contempt of court? The Common Law definition of contempt of Court is : ‘An act or omission calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice.’ (Bowen L.J. in Helmore v. Smith). The contempt of court as defined by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 includes civil and criminal contempt. … The definition of criminal contempt is wide enough to include any act by a person which would tend to interfere with the administration of justice or which would lower the authority of court. The public have a vital stake in effective and orderly administration of justice. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the community in the due administration of justice and, so, it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of court, not to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury, but, to protect and to vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of justice is not perverted, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. … The object and purpose of punishing contempt for interference with the administration of justice is not to safeguard or protect the dignity of the Judge or the Magistrate, but the purpose is to preserve the authority of the courts to ensure an ordered life in society. … The power to punish contempt is vested in the Judges not for their personal protection only, but for the protection of public justice, whose interest, requires that decency and decorum is preserved in Courts of Justice. Those who have to discharge duty in a Court of Justice are protected by the law, and shielded in the discharge of such duties, any deliberate interference with the discharge of such duties either in court or outside the court by attacking the presiding officers of the court, would amount to criminal contempt and the courts must take serious cognizance of such conduct. (Paras 41 and 42)

1. Madhavrao Jivajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., JT 1988 (1) SC 279 = 1988 (1) SCC 692 (Para 48)
2. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr., JT 1988 (2) SC 325 = 1988 (2) SCC 602 (Para 50)
3. Navnit R. Kamani & Ors. v. R.R. Kamani, JT 1988 (3) SC 700 = 1988 (4) SCC 387 (Para 50)
4. Ganga Bishan v. Jai Narain, 1986 (1) SCC 75 (Paras 38, 50)
5. Harbans Singh v. U.P. State, 1982 (3) SCR 235 at 243 (Para 50)
6. State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors., 1982 (3) SCR 121 (Para 48)
7. S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow v. Vinay Chandra Misra, 1981 (2) SCR 331 (Para 28)
8. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, 1980 (3) SCC 526 (Para 10)
9. Balkishan Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra, 1980 (4) SCC 600 (Para 12)
10. Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham & Anr., 1979 (2) SCC 297 (Para 17)
11. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Ors. 1978 (4) SCC 494 (Para 39)
12. State of U.P. v. Poosu & Anr., 1976 (3) SCR 1005 (Para 50)
13. R.L. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1972 SC 858 (Para 25)
14. Debabrata Bandopadhyaya’s case, AIR 1969 SC 189 (Para 13)
15. B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors., 1966 (3) SCR 682 (Para 50)
16. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1966 (3) SCR 744 – Distinguished. (Para 38)
17. Special Reference No.1 of 1964, 1965 (1) SCR 413 at 499 (Para 38)
18. Raja Soap Factory & Ors. v. S.P. Shantharaj & Ors., 1965 (2) SCR 800 – Distinguished. (Para 30)
19. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., Allahabad, 1963 Supp. 1 SCR 885. (Para 50)
20. Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh & Ors, 1955 (1) SCR 267 (Para 16)
21. Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors., 1955 (1) SCR 1. (Para 32)
22. Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the PEPSU High Court, 1954 SCR 454 (Para 13)
23. The State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, 1954 SCR 786 at 795 (Para 32)
24. State of Bombay v. Gajanan Mahadev Badley, AIR 1954 Bombay 352 -Approved. (Para 32)
25. Om Prakash Gupta v. The United Provinces, AIR 1951 Allahabad 205 – Approved. (Para 32)
26. Purshottam Lal Jaitly v. The King Emperor, 1944 FCR 364 (Para 32)
27. K.L. Gupta v. The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore & Anr., AIR 1942 FC 1 (Para 32)
28. Mohammad Yusuf v. Imtiaz Ahmad Khan, AIR 1939 Oudh 131 (Para 24)
29. Harkishan Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1937 Lahore 497 (Para 24)
30. Mt. Hirabai v. Mangal Chand AIR 1935 Nagpur 46 (Para 24)
31. Shantha Nand Gir v. Basudevanand, AIR 1930 Allahabad 225 (FB) (Para 24)
32. Abdul Hassan Jauhar’s case AIR 1926 Allahabad 623 (Para 24)
33. Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi’s case (1920) 22 Bombay Law Reporter 368 (Para 24)
34. Tushar Kanti Ghosh and another, AIR 1935 Calcutta 419 (Para 12)
35. Surendra Nath Banerjee v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal, ILR 10 Calcutta 109 (Para 21)
36. Venkat Rao’s case 21 Madras Law Journal 832 (Para 24)
37. Legal Remembrancer v. Motilal Ghosh, ILR 41 Cal 173 (Para 24)

Foreign Cases Referred:

1. Rex v. Almon, 97 ER 94 (Para 20)
2. Rainy v. The Justices of Seirra Leone, 8 Moors PC at 54 (Para 20)
3. Attorney – General v. B.B.C. 1980 (3) ALR 161 (Para 23)
4. Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers, (1974) A.C. 273.(Para 41)
5. Offutt v. U.S., (1954) 348 US 11 (Para 41)
6. Rex v. Davies followed in King v. Editor of the Daily Mail, 1921 (2) KB 733 (Para 23)
7. King v. Davies, (1906) 1 K.B. 32 (Para 23)
8. Rex v. Parke, (1903) 2 K.B. 432. (Para 23)
9. Helmore v. Smith (1886) 35 Ch. D 436. (Para 41)

Books and Articles Referred:

Fox J.C. : History of Contempt of Court, 1927. (Para 12)
Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 10, para 319. (Para 19)
Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 10, para 713. (Para 19)
Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law. (Para 19)
Oswald on Contempt of Court. (Para 42)
Wharton’s Law Lexicon. (Para 19)
Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition), Vol. 10, p. 429. (Para 19)

K.N. SINGH, J. :
1. On 25th September, 1989, a horrendous incident took place in the town of Nadiad, District Kheda in the State of Gujarat, which exhibited the berserk behaviour of Police undermining the dignity and independence of judiciary. S.R. Sharma, Inspector of Police, with 25 years of service posted at the Police Station, Nadiad, arrested, assaulted and handcuffed N.L. Patel, 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. The Inspector S.R. Sharma got the Chief Judicial Magistrate photographed in handcuffs with rope tied around his body alongwith the constables which were published in the news papers all over the country. This led to tremors in the Bench and the Bar throughout the whole country.
2. The incident undermined the dignity of courts in the country, Judicial Officers, Judges and Magistrates all over the country were in a state of shock, they felt insecure and humiliated and it appeared that instead of Rule of Law there was Police Raj in Gujarat. A number of Bar Associations passed Resolutions and went on strike. The Delhi Judicial Service Association, the All India Judges Association, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Judicial Service of Gujarat and many others approached the Apex Court by means of telegrams and petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for saving the dignity and honour of the judiciary. On 29.9.1989, this Court took cognizance of the matter by issuing notices to the State of Gujarat and other Police Officers. The Court appealed to the Members of the Bar and Judiciary to resume work to avoid inconvenience to the litigant public. Subsequently, a number of petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for taking action against the Police Officers and also for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the Police against N.L.Patel, Chief Judicial Magistrate. A number of Bar Associations, Bar Councils and individuals appeared as interveners condemning the action of the police and urging the Court for taking action against the Police Officers.
3. In Petition No.518 of 1989 alongwith Contempt Petition No.6 of 1989 filed by the President, All India Judges Association, notices for contempt were issued by this Court on 4.10.1989 to seven Police Officials, D.K. Dhagal, D.S.P., A.M. Waghela, Dy.S.P., S.R. Sharma, Police Inspector, Kuldeep Singh Lowchab, Police Inspector(Crime), K.H. Sadia, Sub-Inspector of Police, Valjibhai Kalabhai, Head Constable and Pratap Singh, Constable. N.L. Patel, CJM, Nadiad also filed an application in W.P.No.517 of 1989 with a prayer to quash the two FIRs lodged against him, to direct the trial of the complaint filed by him as State case and to award compensation.
4. On 13.2.1990 notices for contempt were issued to K. Dadabhoy, Ex.D.G.P., Gujarat, Dr. Bhavsar, Senior Medical Officer of Govt.Hospital Nadiad and M.B. Savant, Mamlatdar, Nadiad. The Court during the proceedings also issued notices to R. Bala Krishnan, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Gujarat and S.S. Sudhalkar, District Judge, Nadiad to show cause why action be not taken against them in view of the Report of Justice Sahai.
5. N.L. Patel was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nadiad in October, 1988. He soon found that the local Police was not co-operating with the courts in effecting service of summons, warrants and notices on accused persons, as a result of which the trials of cases were delayed. He made complaint against the local Police to the District Superintendent of Police and forwarded a copy of the same to the Director General of Police but nothing concrete happened. On account of these complaints S.R. Sharma, Police Inspector Nadiad was annoyed with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he withdrew constables posted in the CJM Court. In April 1989 Patel filed two complaints with the Police against Sharma and other Police Officials, Nadiad for delaying the process of the court. On 25 July, 1989 Patel directed the Police to register a criminal case against 14 persons who had caused obstruction in judicial proceedings but subsequently since they tendered unqualified apology, the CJM directed the Police Inspector to drop the cases against those persons. Sharma reacted strongly to Patel’s direction and he made complaint against the CJM to the Registrar of the High Court through District Superintendent of Police. These facts show that there was hostility between the Police of Nadiad and the CJM. On 25.9.1989, S.R. Sharma met Patel, CJM in his Chambers to discuss the case of one Jitu Sport where the Police had failed to submit charge-sheet within 90 days. During discussion Sharma invited the CJM to visit the Police Station to see the papers and further his visit would mollify the sentiments of the Police Officials. It is alleged that at 8.35 p.m. Sharma sent a Police Jeep at Patel’s residence, and on that vehicle Patel went to the Police Station. What actual happened at the Police Station is a matter of serious dispute between the parties. According to the CJM, he arrived in the Chamber of Sharma in the Police Station, he was forced to consume liquor and on his refusal he was assaulted, handcuffed and tied with rope by Sharma, Police Inspector, Sadia Sub- Inspector, Valjibhai Kalajibhai, Head Constable and Pratap Singh, Constable. It is further alleged that Patel was sent to Hospital for Medical examination under handcuffs where he was made to sit on a bench in the varanda exposing him to the public gaze. Sharma, Police Inspector and other Police Officers have disputed these allegations. According to Sharma, Patel entered his chamber at the Police Station at 8.45 p.m. on 25.9.1989 in a drunken state shouting and abusing him, he caught hold of Sharma and slapped him, and since he was violent he was arrested, handcuffed and sent to Hospital for medical examination. Patel himself wanted to be photographed while he was handcuffed and tied with ropes, a photographer was arranged to take his photograph which was published in the newspapers.
6. Since, there was serious dispute between the parties with regard to the entire incident, the Court appointed Justice R. M. Sahai senior puisne Judge of the Allahabad High Court (as he then was) to inquire into the incident and to submit report to the Court. Justice Sahai was appointed to hold the inquiry on behalf of this Court and not under the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act. Justice Sahai visited Nadiad and held sittings there. The learned Commissioner/Judge invited affidavits/statements, and examined witnesses including S.R. Sharma the Police Inspector, D.K. Dhagal, D.S.P. and other Police Officers, lawyers, N.L.Patel, CJM, and Doctors and other witnesses. Justice Sahai afforded full opportunity to all the concerned persons including the State Government, Police Officers and lawyers to lead evidence and to cross examine witnesses. He submitted a detailed Report dated 28.11.1989 to this Court on 1.12.1989. On receipt of the Report this Court directed copies to be delivered to concerned parties and permitted the parties and the contemners to file their objections, if any, before this Court. The objections were filed by the Police Officers and the contemners disputing the findings recorded by the Commissioner.
7. On 12.12.1989, when the matter came up for final disposal the Court issued notices to the Attorney-General and Advocate -General of the State of Gujarat. On 10.1.1990 the Court directed the State of Gujarat to file affidavit stating as to what action it had taken or proposed to take against the officers in the light of the Report of Justice Sahai. The Court further issued notices to R.Bala Krishnan, Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Gujarat, K.K. Dadabhoy, Director General of Police, S.S.Sudhalkar, District Judge, to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them in view of the Report of Justice Sahai. The State Government was further directed to explain as to why action against D.K.Dhagal, DSP, S.R.Sharma, Police Inspector and other police officers had not been taken. On 13.2.1990 a notice for contempt of this Court was issued to
K.K.Dadabhoy on the same date in view of the findings recorded by Justice Sahai, notices for contempt of court were issued to Dr. Bhavsar and M.B.Savant, Mamlatdar, Nadiad also.
8. In his affidavit, S.R.Sharma, Police Inspector has raised a number of objections to the findings recorded by the Commissioner. The objections are technical in nature, challenging the authority and jurisdiction of the Commissioner in collecting evidence and recording findings against him. Sharma has further stated in his objections that the Commissioner acted as if he was sitting in judgment over the case. Other Police Officers have also raised similar objections. We find no merit in the objections raised on behalf of Sharma, Police Inspector and other contemners. The Commissioner had been appointed by this Court to hold inquiry and submit his report to the Court. Justice Sahai was acting on behalf of this Court and he had full authority to record evidence and cross-examine witnesses and to collect evidence on behalf of this Court. Since, the main incident of Chief Judicial Magistrate’s arrest, assault, handcuffing and roping was connected with several other incidents which led to the confrontation between the Magistracy and local police, the learned Commissioner was justified in recording his findings on the background and genesis of the entire episode. The Police Inspector Sharma raised a grievance that he was denied opportunity of cross-examination of Patel, CJM and he was not permitted to produce Dr. Jhala as a witness, Sharma’s application for the recall of CJM for further cross-examination and for permission to produce Dr. Jhala, retired Deputy Director, Medical and Health Services, Gujarat, was rejected by a well reasoned order of the Commissioner dated 9.11.1989. We have gone through the order and we find that the Commissioner has given good reasons for rejecting the recall of CJM for further cross -examination, as he had been cross-examined by the counsel appearing on behalf of the Police officials including Sharma. The Police Officers and the State Government and CJM were represented by counsel before the Commissioner and every opportunity was afforded to them for cross -examining the witnesses. Dr. Jhala’s evidence was not necessary, the Commissioner rightly refused Sharma’s prayer.
9. On behalf of the contemners it was urged that in the absence of any independent testimony the Commission was not justified in accepting interested version of the incident as given by the CJM with regard to his visit to the Police Station and the incident which took place inside the Police Station. There was oath against oath and in the absence of any independent testimony the Commission was not justified in accepting the sole interested testimony of Patel, CJM. We find no merit in this objection. The learned Commissioner has considered the evidence as well as the circumstances in support of his findings that Patel had been invited by Sharma to visit the Police Station and he had sent a Police jeep on which Patel went to the Police Station. This fact is supported by independent witnesses as discussed by the Commissioner. If Patel had gone on the invitation of Sharma on Police jeep and not in the manner as alleged by Sharma, Patel could not be drunk and there appears no reason as to why he would have assaulted Sharma as alleged by the Police. The circumstances as pointed out by the Commissioner fully justify the findings recorded against the Police Officers. It is settled law that even in a criminal trial, accused is convicted on circumstantial evidence in the absence of an eye witness. Learned Commissioner acted judicially in a fair and objective manner in holding the inquiry, he afforded opportunity to the affected Police Officers and other persons and submitted his Report based on good reasons in respect of his findings which are amply supported by the material on record. The Commissioner did a commendable job in a record time. After hearing arguments at length and on perusal of the statements recorded by the Commissioner and the documentary evidence submitted by the parties, and a careful scrutiny of the affidavits and objections filed in this Court, we find no valid ground to reject the well -reasoned findings recorded by the learned Commissioner. The Commissioner’s Report runs into 140 pages, which is on record. The contemners and other respondents have failed to place any convincing material before the Court to take a different view. We accordingly accept the same.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the affidavits, objections, applications and the Report of the Commissioner, we hold that the following facts and circumstances are fully proved:
(1) N.L. Patel, Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the Police of Nadiad was not effective in service of summons and it had adopted an attitude of indifference to court orders. He tried to obtain the assistance of the District Superintendent of Police in February, 1989 and addressed a letter to the Director General of Police but no response came from the Police Authorities, even though the Government had reminded D.K. Dhagal, D.S.P., Kheda to do the needful. Patel, the CJM filed two complaints against Police Officers of Nadiad Police Station and the Inspectors, and forwarded it to the District Superintendent of Police on 19th and 24th July, 1989 for taking action against them. Sharma, the Police Inspector who had by then been posted at Nadiad reacted to the CJM’s conduct by withdrawing constables working in the courts of Magistrates on the alleged pretext of utilising their services for service of summons. This led to confrontation between the local Police and the Magistracy commenced.
(2) On 25th July, 1989, the CJM had directed the registration of a case against 14 accused persons for misbehaviour and causing obstruction in the judicial proceedings. Since the accused persons had later expressed regret and tendered unqualified apology to the court, the CJM sent a letter to the Police Inspector, Sharma to drop proceedings. Sharma went out of his way, to send a complaint to the High Court through the D.S.P. saying that Patel was functioning in an illegal manner in the judicial discharge of his duties. The action of Sharma, Police Inspector was highly irresponsible and Dhagal, D.S.P. should not have acted in a casual manner in forwarding Sharma’s letter to the Registrar of the High Court directly.
(3) Remand period of Jitu Sport was to expire on 27th September, 1989, the CJM directed the Police Inspector to produce complete papers before the expiry of the period of remand but he applied for the extension of the judicial remand. The CJM directed the Police Inspector to produce papers on 22.9.1989, Sharma did not appear before the CJM as directed, on the contrary he interpolated the order, sent to him indicating that he was required to appear before the CJM on 23.9.1989, which was admittedly a holiday.
(4) On 25th September, 1989, Sharma met the CJM in his Chamber and as a pretext requested him to come to the Police Station to see the papers which could not be brought to the Court, as that could satisfy him that the Police was doing the needful for complying with the orders of the Court. Sharma pleaded with CJM that his visit to Police Station will remove the feeling of confrontation between the Police and Magistracy. The CJM agreed to visit the Police Station and Sharma offered to send police jeep to CJM’s house for bringing him to the Police Station.
(5) On 25.9.89 after the Court hours the CJM went to the officers’ club where he remained in the company of Sudhalkar, District Judge and Pande, Civil Judge till 8.30 p.m. Thereafter, he went to his residence. A Police jeep came to his residence at about 8.40 p.m. in the Officers Colony, he went on that Police jeep to the Police Station situate at a distance of about 2 kms. Patel had not consumed liquor before he went to the Police Station.
(6) The Police version that Patel had consumed liquor before coming to the Police Station and that he assaulted the Police Inspector Sharma and misbehaved with him at the Police Station is a cooked up story. Patel did not go to the Police Station on foot as alleged by Sharma, instead, he went to the Police Station in a Police jeep on Sharma’s invitation. Patel was handcuffed and tied with rope, and he received injuries at the Police Station, he was assaulted and forced to consume liquor after he was tied to the chair on which he was sitting, Police Inspector Sharma, Sub-Inspector Sadia, Head Constable Valjibhai Kalabhai and Constable Pratap Singh took active part in this episode. They actively participated in the assault on Patel and in forcing liquor in his mouth. They acted in collusion with Sharma to humiliate and teach a lesson to Patel.
(7) On the direction of Sharma, Police Inspector, Patel was handcuffed at the Police Station and he was further tied up with a thick rope by the Police Inspector, Sharma, Sadia, Sub -Inspector, Valjibhai Kalabhai, Head Constable and Pratap Singh, Constable. This was deliberately done in defiance of Police Regulations and Circulars issued by the Gujarat Government and the law declared by this Court in Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration1. Patel had not committed any offence nor he was violent and yet he was handcuffed and tied up with rope without there being any justification for the same. There were seven police personnel present at the Police Station and most of them were fully armed while Patel was empty handed, there was absolutely no chance of Patel escaping from the custody or making any attempt to commit suicide or attacking the Police Officers and yet he was handcuffed and tied up with a thick rope like an animal with a view to humiliate and teach him a lesson. For this wanton act there was absolutely no justification and pleas raised by Sharma that Patel was violent or that he would have escaped from the custody are figment of imagination made for the purpose of the case.
(8) The panchnama showing the drunken state of Patel prepared on the dictation of Sharma, Police Inspector, and signed by Sharma as well as by two panches, M.B.Savant, Mamlatdar and P.D.Barot, Fire Brigade Officer, Nadiad, did not represent the correct facts, instead,it was manufactured for the purpose of preparing a false case against CJM Patel, justifying his arrest and detention.
(9) On examination at the Civil Hospital Patel’s body was found to have a number of injuries. The injury on the left eye was very clear which appeared to have been caused by external force. His body had bruises and abrasions which could be caused by fists and blows. While in the casualty ward of the Civil Hospital, Patel requested the Doctors to contact the District Judge and inform him about the incident. Dr. Parashar tried to ring up the District Judge but he was prevented from doing so by Sharma and other Police Officers who were present there. Dr. Parashar and Dr. Bhavsar found the speech of Patel normal, gait steady, he was neither violent, nor he misbehaved. His blood was taken for chemical examination but the Forms used were not according to the rules and the blood was not taken in accordance with procedure prescribed by the Rules and the Circulars issued by the Director of Medical Services, Gujarat. The chemical examination of the blood sample taken in the Civil Hospital was not correctly done. The blood sample was analysed by a teenager who was not a testing officer within the Bombay Prohibition Act and necessary precautions at the time of analysis were not taken. The phial in which the blood sample had been sent to the Chemical Examiner did not contain the seal on phial and the seal was not fully legible. The Chemical Examiner who submitted the report holding that the blood sample of Patel contained alcohol on the basis of the calculation made by him in the report clearly admitted before the Commission that he had never determined the quantity of liquor by making calculation in any other case and Patel’s case was his first case.
(10) When Patel was taken to Civil Hospital handcuffed and tied with thick rope he was deliberately made to sit outside in the Varanda on bench for half an hour in public gaze, to enable the public to have a full view of the CJM in that condition. A Press photographer was brought on the scene and the Policemen posed with Patel for the press photograph. The photographs were taken by the Press Reporter without any objection by the Police, although a belated justification was pleaded by the Police that Patel desired to have himself photographed in that condition. This plea is totally false. The photographs taken by the Press Reporter were published in ‘Jan Satta’ and ‘Lokmat’ on 26th September, 1989 showing Patel handcuffed and tied with rope and the Policemen standing beside him. This was deliberately arranged by Sharma to show to the public that Police wielded real power and if the CJM took confrontation with Police he will not be spared.
(11) At the initial stage, one case was registered against Patel by the Police under the Bombay Prohibition Act. Two Advocates Kantawala and Brahmbhatt met Sharma at 11.30 p.m. for securing Patel’s release on bail, as offences under the Prohibition Act were bailable. The lawyers requested Sharma to allow them to meet the CJM who was in the police lock-up but Sharma did not allow them to do so. With a view to frustrate lawyers’ attempt to get Patel released on bail, Sharma registered another case against Patel under Sections 332 and 506 of Indian Penal Code as offence under Section 332 is non -bailable.
(12) D.K.Dhagal, the then District Superintendent of Police, Kheda exhibited total indifference to CJM’s complaint regarding the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the matter of execution of court processes. Dhagal identified himself with Sharma, Police Inspector who appeared to be his favourite. Instead of taking corrective measures in the service of processes, he became party along with Sharma in forwarding his complaint to the High Court against Patel’s order in a judicial matter. The incident which took place in the night of 25/26 September 1989, had the blessing of Dhagal. He did not take any immediate action in the matter instead he created an alibi for himself alleging that he had gone to Lasundara and then to Balasinor Police Station and stayed there in a Government Rest House. The register at the Rest House indicating the entry regarding his stay was manipulated subsequently by making interpolation. On the direction of Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Dhagal submitted his report on 27.9.1989 but in that report he did not make any reference of handcuffing and roping of the CJM although it was a matter of common knowledge and there was a great resentment among the judicial officers and the local public. Dhagal’s complicity in the sordid episode is further fortified by the fact that he permitted Sharma, the main culprit of the entire episode to carry on investigation against Patel in the case registered against him by Sharma and also in the case registered by Patel against Sharma.
(13) Police Inspector Sharma had pre-planned the entire incident and he had even arranged witnesses in advance for preparing false case against N.L.Patel, CJM, as M.B.Savant, Mamlatdar in the Police Station, immediately on the arrival of Patel, CJM, and they acted in complicity with Sharma in preparing the panchnama which falsely stated that Patel was drunk. M.B.Sawant and P.D.Barot both were hand in glove with Sharma to falsely implicate Patel in Prohibition Case.
11. Learned Commissioner has adversely commented upon the conduct of various officers including K.Dadabhoy, the then Director General of Police, Gujarat, Kuldip Singh Lowchab, CID Inspector, Dr. Bhavsar, Senior Medical Officer, Nadiad, M.B.Savant, Mamlatdar, P.D.Barot, Fire Brigade Officer and A.N.Patel, Chemical Examiner, Nadiad. After considering the material on record, we agree with the view taken by the Commissioner that their conduct was not above board as expected from responsible officers. We do not consider it necessary to burden the judgment by referring to the details of the findings as the same are contained in the Commissioner’s Report.