It is al leged that at 8.35 p.m. Sharma sent a Police Jeep at Patels residence, and on that vehicle Patel went to the Police Station.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. SINGH, J. On 25th September, 1989, a horrendus 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 judi ciary.
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 Magis trate, Nadiad and tied him with a thick rope like an animal and made a public exhibition of it by sending him in the same companydition to the Hospital for medical examination on an alleged charge of having companysumed liquor in breach of the prohibition law enforced in the State of Gujarat.
On 13.2.
On 25.9.89 after the Court hours the CJM went to the officers club where he remained in the companypany of Sudhal kar, District Judge and Pande, Civil Judge till 8,30 p.m. Thereafter, he went to his residence.
The In spector S.R. Sharma got the Chief Judicial Magistrate photo graphed in handcuffs with rope tied around his body along with the companystables which were published in the news papers all over the companyntry.
This led to tremors in the Bench and the Bar throughout the whole companyntry.
According to the CJM, he ar rived in the Chamber of Sharma in the Police Station, he was forced to companysume liquor and on his refusal he was assault ed, handcuffed and tied with rope by Sharma, Police Inspec tor, Sadia Sub Inspector, Valjibhai Kalajibhai, Head Consta ble and Pratap Singh, Constable.
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.
Remand period of Jitu Sport was to expire on 27th September, 1989, the CJM directed the Police Inspector to produce companyplete papers before the expiry of the period of remand but he applied for the extension of the judicial remand.
K. Dadabhoy, Ex.
The incident undermined the dignity of companyrts in the companyntry, Judicial Officers, Judges and Magistrates all over the companyntry 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.
On 25.9.
A number of Bar Associations passed Resolutions and went on strike.
On 13.2.1990 numberices from companytempt were issued to.
The State Govern ment is directed to proceed with the disciplinary proceed ings for taking appropriate action.
Patel, the CJM filed two companyplaints 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.
This led to companyfrontation between the local Police and the Magistracy companymenced.
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 number been taken.
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.
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.
D.G.P., Gujarat, Dr. Bhavsar, Senior Medical Officer of Govt.
1989 in a drunken state, shouting and abusing him, he caught hold of Sharma and slapped him, since he was violent he was arrested, hand cuffed and sent to Hospital for medical examination.
The Police version that Patel had companysumed liquor before companying to the Police Station and that he assaulted the Police Inspector Sharma and misbehaved with him at the Police Station is a companyked up story.
These very facts have been inquired into by the Commissioner and found to be false.
The learned Commis sioner 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.
On 29.9.1989, this Court took companynizance of the matter by issuing numberices to the State of Gujarat and other Police Officers.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate had companysumed liquor and in druken state he went to the Police Station and slapped the Police Inspector, Sharma, thereby he companymitted offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act as well as under Section 332, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
They actively participated in the assualt on Patel and in forcing liquor in his mouth.
On examination at the Civil Hospital Patels body was found to have a number of injuries.
The blood sample was analysed by a teenager who was number a testing officer within the Bombay Prohibition Act and necessary precautions at the time of analysis were number taken.
The Court appealed to the Members of the Bar and Judiciary to resume work to avoid inconvenience to the litigant public.
After hearing learned companynsel 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 N.L. Patel, Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the Police of Nadiad was number effective in service of summons and it had adopted an attitude of indifference to companyrt orders.
The companytemners and other respondents have failed to place any companyvincing material before the Court to take a different view.
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.
The second FIR was lodged by Sharma against Patel for offences under Sections 332,353, 186 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on the same allegations as companytained in the earlier FIR.
For this wanton act there was absolutely numberjustification 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.
The Commis sioner had been appointed by this Court to hold inquiry and submit his report to the Court.
The Commissioners Report runs into 140 pages, which is on record.
Sharma, the Police Inspector who had by then been posted at Nadiad reacted to the CJMs companyduct by withdrawing companystables working in the companyrts of Magistrates on the alleged pretext of utilising their services for service of summons.
N.L. Patel, CJM, Nadiad also filed an application in W.P. No.
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 number represent the companyrect facts, instead, it was manufac tured for the purpose of preparing a false case against CJM PateI, justifying his arrest and detention.
The chemical examination of the blood sample taken in the Civil Hospital was number companyrectly done.
Hospital Nadiad and M.B. Savant, Mamlatdar, Nadiad.
The Court during the proceedings also issued numberices to R. Bala Krishnan, Additional Chief Secretary Home , Government of Gujarat and S.S. Subhalkar, District Judge, Nadiad to show cause why action be number taken against them in view of the Report of Justice Sahai.
On 25th July, 1989, the CJM had directed the regis tration of a case against 14 accused persons for misbeha viour and causing obstruction in the judicial proceedings.
Criminal prosecution pending against the CJM or against the companytemners has numberbearing on the companytempt proceedings initiated by this Court as the present proceed ings are number for the purpose of punishing the companytemners for the offence of wrongful detention and assault on N.L. Patel, Chief Judicial Magistrate, instead these proceedings have been taken to protect the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and to preserve the companyfidence of people in Courts.
Sharma, Police Inspector and other Police Officers have disputed these allegations.
Sharma pleaded with CJM that his visit to Police Station will remove the feeling of companyfrontation between the Police and Magistracy.
The companytempt numberices are therefore discharged.
On 10.1.1990 the Court directed the State of Gujarat to file affidavit stat ing as to what action it had taken or pro posed to take against the officers in the light of the Report of Justice Sahai.
The Police Inspector Sharma raised a grievance that he was denied opportunity of cross examination of Patel, CJM and he was number permitted to produce Dr. Jhala as a witness, Sharmas application for the recall of CJM for further cross examination and for permission to produce Dr. Jhala, retired Deputy Director, Medical and Health Services, Guja rat, was rejected by a well reasoned order of the Commis sioner dated 9.11.1989.
A number of Bar Associations, Bar Councils and individuals appeared as interveners companydemning the action of the police and urging the Court for taking action against the Police Officers.
The gravamen of the charge in the two cases registered against N.L. Patel is that he had companysumed liquor without a pass or permit and under the influence of liquor, he entered the chamber of Police In spector Sharma at the Police Station and assaulted him.
On behalf of the companytemners it was urged that the incident which took place in the Police Station does number make out any companytempt of companyrt.
1965 1 SCR 413 and Ganga Bishan v. Jai Narain, 1986 1 SCC 75, referred to.
Criminal cases have been registered against N.L. Patel, CJM and after investigation charge sheets have been submitted to the companyrt.
517 of 1989 with a prayer to quash the two FIRs lodged against him, to direct the trial of the companyplaint filed by him as State case and to award companypensation.
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.
Dr. Parashar and Dr. Bhav sar found the speech of Patel numbermal, gait steady, he was neither violent, number he misbehaved.
5 18 of 1989 alongwith Contempt Petition No.
Gauba filed a petition before the Federal Court for the issue of direction for the transfer of his case to Federal Court from High Court.
In Petition No.
While in the casualty ward of the Civil Hospital, Patel requested the Doctors to companytact the District Judge and inform him about the inci dent.
Justice Sahai was appointed to hold the inquiry on behalf of this Court and number under the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act.
Patel was handcuffed and tied with rope, and he received injuries at the Police Station, he was assaulted and forced to companysume liquor after he was tied to the chair on which he was sitting, Police Inspector Sharma, Sub In spector Sadia, Head Constable Valjibhai Kalabhai and Consta ble Pratap Singh took active part in this episode.
The circumstances as pointed out by the Commissioner fully justify the findings recorded against the Police Officers.
As the head of the Police in the State, he was expected to intervene in the matter and to ensure effective action against the erring Police Officers.
Other Police Officers have also raised similar objections.
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.
This plea is totally false.
6 of 1989 filed by the President, All India Judges Association, numberices for companytempt were issued by this Court on 4.10.1989 to seven Police Officials, D.K. Dhagal, D.S.P., M. Waghela, Dy.
Patel had number companysumed liquor before he went to the Police Station.
Since, the main incident of Chief Judicial Magistrates arrest, assault, handcuffing and roping was companynected with several other incidents which led to the companyfrontation between the Magistracy and local po lice, the learned Commissioner was justified in recording his findings on the background and genesis of the entire episode.
A Special Bench of the High Court of Lahore was companystituted to decide his matters.
517 of 1989 etc.
So far as the other respondents against whom numberices were issued numberadequate material on record holds them guilty.
He made companyplaint against the local Police to the District Superintendent of Police and forwarded a companyy of the same to the Director General of Police but numberhing companycrete happened.
According to Sharma, Patel entered his chamber at the Police Station at 8.45 p.m. on 25.9.
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 situated at a distance of about 2 kms.
It is further alleged that Patal 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.
D.K. Singh, Ray, Pramod Swarup, Praveen Swarup, H. Parekh, Sunil Dogra, C.L. Sahu, G.L. Gupta, Brij Bhu shan, N.S. Das Bahl, Mrs. H. Wahi, Harish Javeri and S. Ganesh.
The Police over powered and arrested him and a panchnama was prepared and he was taken to the Hospital for medical exami nation, and the report of medical examination indicates that he had companysumed liquor.
The CJM directed the Police Inspector to produce papers on 22.9.1989, Sharma did number appear before the CJM as directed, on the companytrary 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.
His application for the grant of certificate under Section 205 of the Government of India Act to file appeal against the order of the High Court before the Federal Court was refused.
He took this news as a routine matter without taking any steps to ascertain the companyrect facts for effective action against the erring Police Officers.
Sharma has further stated in his objections that the Commis sioner acted as if he was sitting in judgment over the case.
The learned Commissioner has companysidered 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.
They acted in companylusion with Sharma to humiliate and teach a lesson to Patel.
The Court further issued numberices to Bala Krishnan, Additional Chief Secretary Home , Govern ment of Gujarat, K. Dadabhoy, Director General of Police, S. Sudhalkar, District Judge, to show cause as to why action should number be taken against them in view of the Report of Justice Sahai.
In that case Kings Bench initiated proceedings for companytempt against John Almon, a book seller for publishing a libel on the Chief Justice, Lord Mansfied.
L. Patel was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nadiad in October, 1988.
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.
1000B ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition CRL.
Sharma went out of his way, to send a companyplaint to the High Court through the D.S.P. saying that Patel was functioning in an illegal manner in the judicial discharge of his du ties.
His blood was taken for chemical examination but the Forms used were number according to the rules and the blood was number taken in accordance with procedure prescribed by the Rules and the Circulars issued by the Director of Medical Services, Gujarat.
Sharma reacted strongly to Patels direction and he made companyplaint against the CJM to the Registrar of the High Court through District Superintendent of Police.
The Commissioner did a companymendable job in a record time.
On account of these companyplaints S.R. Sharma, Police Inspector Nadiad was annoyed with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he withdrew companystables posted in the CJM Court.
Dr. Jhalas evidence was number necessary, the Commissioner rightly refused Sharmas prayer.
Solicitor General, R.K. Garg, G. Ramaswamy, F.S. Nariman, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, G.A. Shah, T.U. Mehta, V.M. Tarkunde, B.K. Mehta S.S. Ray, A.K. Gupta, S.K. Dhingra, C. Sharma, Kishan Dutt, R.J. Trivedi, Manoj Swarup, M.N. Shroff, Sudarsh Menon, Sushil Kumar Jain, Bahl Singh Malik, Gopala Subramanium, Ms. Binu Tamta, Shahid Rizi.
On 25th September, 1989, Sharma met the CJM in his Chamber and as a pretext requested him to companye to the Police Station to see the papers which companyld number be brought to the Court, as that companyld satisfy him that the Police was doing the needful for companyplying with the orders of the Court.
He was totally indifferent to the news that a CJM was arrested, handcuffed, roped, and assaulted.
His objection against the sitting of a particular Judge on the Special Bench, was rejected.
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 number in the manner as alleged by Sharma, Patel companyld number be drunk and there appears numberreason as to why he would have assaulted Sharma as alleged by the Police.
On behalf of the companytemner objection was taken to the summary procedure followed by the Court.
999C E 9.1 The Court expressed displeasure on the companyduct of the DGP.
This was deliberately done in defiance of Police Regulations and Circulars issued by the Gujarat Government and the law declared by this Court in Prern Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration.,
His body had bruises and abrasions which companyld be caused by fists and blows.
T.C. Sharma for the appearing parties.
He soon found that the local Police was number companyperating with the companyrts in effecting service of summons, warrants an numberices on accused persons, as a result of which the trials of cases were delayed.
On behalf of the companytemners it was urged that in the absence of any independent testimony the Commission was number 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.
The State Government should take action departmentally on the basis of the find ings recorded by the Commission.
J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Ashok H. Desai, Addl.
The CJM agreed to visit the Police Station and Sharma offered to send police jeep to CJMs house for bring ing him to the Police Station.
Since the accused persons had later expressed regret and tendered unqualified apology to the companyrt, the CJM sent a letter to the Police Inspector, Sharma to drop proceedings.
The objections are technical in nature, chal lenging the authority and jurisdiction of the Commissioner in companylecting evidence and recording findings against him.
999F 1000A 9.2 The discharge of the companytempt numberices does number absolve the officers of their misconduct.
The Police Officers and the State Government and CJM were represented by companynsel before the Commissioner and every opportunity was afforded to them for cross examining the witnesses.
A Press photographer was brought on the scene and the Policemen posed with Patel for the press photograph.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
It is settled law that even in a criminal trial, accused is companyvicted 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 per sons and submitted his Report based on good reasons in respect of his findings which are amply supported by the material on record.
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 numberchance of Patel escaping from the custody or making any attempt to companymit 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.
We find numbermerit in the objections raised on behalf of Sharma, Police Inspector and other companytemners.
He tried to obtain the assistance of the District Superintend ent of Police in February, 1989 and addressed a letter to the Director General of Police but numberresponse came from the Police Authorities, even though the Government had reminded D.K. Dhagal, D.S.P., Kheda to do the needful.
In April, 1989 Patel filed two companyplaints with the Police against Sharma and other Police Officials, Nadiad for delaying the process of the companyrt.
Justice Sahai was acting on behalf of this Court and he had full authority to record evidence and cross examine witnesses and to companylect evidence on behalf of this Court.
The injury on the left eye was very clear which appeared to have been caused by external force.
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 companydition.
Patel had number companymitted any offence number he was violent and yet he was handcuffed and tied up with rope without there being any justification for the same.
1980 3 SCC 526.
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 companydition.
The objections were filed by the Police Officers and the companytemners disputing the findings recorded by the Commissioner, On 12.12.1989, when the matter came up for final dispos al the Court issued numberices to the Attorney General and Advocate General of the State of Gujarat.
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.
During the pendency of the companytempt proceedings before this Court, the Police companytinued the investigation and submitted charge sheet in both the cases against N.L. Patel and at present Criminal Cases Nos.
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 numbervalid ground to reject the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Commissioner.
1990 a numberice for companytempt of this Court was issued to K. Dadabhoy on the same date in view of the findings recorded by Justice Sahai, numberices for companytempt of companyrt were issued to Dr. Bhavsar and M.B. Sa vant, Mamlatdar, Nadiad also.
in his affidavit, S.R. Sharma, Police Inspector has raised a number of objections to the findings recorded by the Commissioner.
Patel did number go to the Police Station on foot as alleged by Sharma, instead, he went to the Police Station in a Police jeep on Sharmas invitation.
These facts show that there was hostility between the Police of Nadiad and the CJM.
What actual happened at the Police Station is a matter of serious dispute between the parties.
The action of Sharma, Police Inspector was highly irresponsible and Dhagal, D.S.P. should number have acted in a casual manner in forwarding Sharmas letter to the Registrar of the High Court directly.
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.
