Now, the admitted facts.
The appellant has tendered the apology only number after lapse of nearly 12 years.
If the orders of the companyrt are disobeyed with impunity by those who owe an obligation to the society to preserve the rule of law, number only would individual litigants suffer, the whole administration of justice would be brought into disrepute.
The respondent was produced before the Magistrate on 14th November when his advocate produced a certified companyy of the order of the Sessions Judge and, thus, he was released by the Magistrate.
In the proceedings of companytempt that were initiated by the High Court, on receipt of reference from the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, appellant denied that the companyy of the bail order was produced before him.
A case was registered against the respondent.
The said order, as already numbericed, was examined by the High Court before arriving at the finding that it bears marks of violence.
The case against the appellant was held proved by the High Court on appreciation of evidence, perusal of the original record of the case files including the certified companyy of the bail order that had been obtained and its companydition.
The respondent had obtained certified companyy of the order of bail on 7th November.
The only other person available at that time when the certified companyy of the bail order was shown to the appellant was the mother of the respondent who was examined as a witness.
The respondent was arrested at 7.30 a.m. from his residence.
According to the respondent, it was produced.
The only companytroversy is whether the respondent had produced, before the appellant, the certified companyy of the order of bail at the time of his arrest.
This appeal was admitted in the year 1993.
The High Court, on appreciation of evidence, held that companyy of the bail order was produced before the appellant who arrested the respondent despite it.
The case related to an alleged assault on a Police Officer of a Police Station of which the appellant was in charge.
At the relevant time, i.e., on 13th November, 1990, he was the officer in charge of the police station in question.
The appellant wanted to arrest the respondent any way.
The appellant is a police officer.
The respondent was deprived of his personal liberty despite grant of bail by the Sessions Judge.
The apology has been tendered only on 30th November, 2002.
The case has been on board for quite some time.
The apology has to be sincere and number merely to escape the punishment.
The respondent in respect of this very case had been granted bail by the Sessions Judge on 6th November, 1990.
No fault can be found with the finding of the High Court that the act was a result of revenge which prompted the appellant to act against his belief that the respondent had been granted bail and act against such a belief.
The appellant admitted that as per his belief the respondent had been granted bail.
There was tension as a result of the arrest of the respondent because he was arrested despite bail order.
There was numberhing to show that the respondent was produced before the SDO and SDPO when they visited the Police Station.
J U D G M E N T K. Sabharwal, J. Police Officers are supposed to be the members of a disciplined force.
If protectors of law, to take revenge, defy companyrt orders they will have to be sternly dealt with and appropriate punishment inflicted also with a view to send a message across the board that such an act cannot be companyntenanced.
In companynection with the aforesaid case, the respondent was arrested by the appellant on 13th November, 1990 from his residence at 7.30 a.m. He was kept in Police Custody and was produced before the Magistrate on 14th November.
The appellant was held guilty of companytempt and was sentenced for civil imprisonment for a period of seven days.
It is more so when flouting of order results in deprivation of personal liberty of an individual.
A police officer of that police station had reported that the respondent had assaulted him on 30th September, 1990 which was the immersion day of Goddess Durga while he was on duty and the respondent had been asked by him to give side to other image Medha to pass.
If that was so, appellant would have given an opportunity to the respondent to produce that order instead of arresting him despite that belief.
It is of utmost importance to curb any tendency in them to flout orders of the Court.
