Bombay High Court
The District Judge And Additional ... vs Balaji Pralhadrao Panchal And Anr on 14 July, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
crcp0117.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.01 OF 2017
V.S.Deshpande,
District Judge & Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalna,
Now District Judge-3 and
A.S.J., Washim Petitioner
Versus
01 B.P.Panchal,
Registrar,
District & Sessions Court,
Jalna.
02 The State of Maharashtra Respondents
Through Post.
Mr.V.M.Kagane, A.P.P. for Respondents.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE AND
A.M.DHAVALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 06th July, 2017.
PRONOUNCED ON : 14th July, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.) :
1 Learned District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge,
Mangrulpeer, District Washim, has made a Reference under
Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, requesting this
Court to take action against Shri Balaji Pralhadrao Panchal,
Registrar, District & Sessions Court, Jalna, for committing criminal
contempt, as defined under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 and it is urged to punish him under section 12 of the
said Act.
{2}
crcp0117.odt
2 It is reported by the learned District Judge II &
Additional Sessions Judge, while at Jalna, that on 04.05.2017, in
the morning session, the Registrar, District Court, has called for
record and proceedings in Sessions Case No.49/2016 through the
Junior Clerk Mr.Milind Narwade, who was deputed in the Court of
District Judge. On noticing removal of the record and proceedings
by Mr.Narwade and upon inquiring with him, it was informed that
the Registrar, District & Sessions Court, has called for the record
and proceedings. According to the learned District Judge II, the
Registrar has no concern with the record and proceedings of the
Sessions Case and was not authorised under law, rules or
regulations, to call for the record and proceedings. According to
the learned District Judge II, the act of Registrar is illegal and
serious one. A notice was issued by the District Judge II to the
Registrar on 04.05.2017 calling upon him to explain as to why
record and proceedings was called by him.
3 In reply to the notice, the Registrar informed the
District Judge II that on 13.07.2016, an order was passed in
Sessions Case No.49 of 2016, calling upon production of
muddemal. The order passed by the Court was not complied with.
It is further informed that the accused involved in the Sessions
Case are under-trial prisoners and since the matter remained
unattended, accused were confined to jail. Notices were also
issued to the two clerks functioning in the Court of Sessions,
namely Mr.D.A.Muley and Mr.D.K.Jondhale, calling upon them to
explain as to why the order was not complied with. It is informed
by the Registrar that he is in-charge of overall administration of the
office of District Court and in his capacity as Registrar, he has
{3}
crcp0117.odt
requested production of record and proceedings and also issued
notices to the concerned clerks.
4 According to the learned Judicial Officer i.e. District
Judge II, the act of the Registrar amounts to interference in the
course of administration of justice. The learned District Judge II
further proceeds to record that even the Principal District &
Sessions Judge has no powers to authorise the Registrar to take
action against the clerical staff of the Court presided over by the
District Judge II. The District Judge II & Additional Sessions
Judge, as such, has tendered this Reference. (Presently posted as
District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Mangrulpeer, District
Washim).
5 The notions entertained by the Judicial Officer appear
to be erroneous. Learned Principal District & Sessions Judge is
very much concerned with the administration of District Judiciary.
The Registrar of the District Court has administrative control over
the office administration of the District Court. If, at all, the
Judicial Officer wields an opinion that the concerned Registrar has
overstepped his authority, it is always open for him to make a
complaint in that regard to the Principal District & Sessions Judge.
6 Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
defines criminal contempt as:
"(2)(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication
(whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs,
or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any
matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever
which--
{4}
crcp0117.odt
{i} scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or
tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere
with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or
obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of
justice in any other manner.
7 The alleged act of the Registrar, which, according to
the learned Judicial Officer amounts to criminal contempt, does
not satisfy the requirements laid down under Section 2(c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The act alleged cannot be said to be
interference in the course of judicial proceedings or can be treated
as an obstruction in the course of administration of justice, in any
manner. The Judicial Officer appears to have certain elevated
notions as regards his authority and has illusory notions about the
powers of the Registrar of the District Court and the Principal
District & Sessions Judge. Criminal contempt is an act of willful
interference/obstruction in administration of justice. The
Registrar was trying to secure the muddemal which, in spite of
order, was not brought for one year, when the accused were under-
trials. By no stretch, the act of the Registrar, even if allegations
are admitted at face value, would amount to contempt.
8 In paragraph 14 of the Reference, the Judicial Officer
has recorded, thus:
"14............... In my humble opinion, this conduct
on the part of the Principal District Judge, Jalna, is
not proper. She had nothing to do with the said
notice. ..........
...... I have already informed to the Registrar
{5}
crcp0117.odt
General of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that the
Registrar or the District Court, Jalna has taken
over entire administration of the District Court,
Jalna and further that the Registrar and Principal
District Judge, Jalna are in collusion and they are
harassing me. It is pertinent to note that when
Principal District Judge, Jalna had sent me back
the notice by post, why she sent the E-mail. It was
sent only to protect the contemnor and to delay the
contempt proceedings."
9 In paragraphs no.17 and 18 of the Reference, it is
recorded thus:
"17 The important aspect is that the reply to
contempt notice is again contemptuous. He replied
that as per the duty list prepared by the office of
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jalna, he can
do any work assigned to him by the Principal
District and Sessions Judge. This statement is false
as well as illegal. Firstly, no P.D.J. can authorise
him to interfere into judicial work of any other
subordinate Judge. The duty list prepared by the
P.D.J. Cannot authorise him to interfere into
judicial work of subordinate Judges. Even if
authorised by such duty list, such a list is neither
law made by legislature nor it will take the law of
precedent. The basic principle of administrative law
is that if a direction given by a superior officer is
illegal, then the subordinate employee shall not obey
such direction. On the contrary, it is his duty to
bring to the notice of the superior the illegality in
such direction.
18 Contemnor's say is clearly showing that he is
stick up to his earlier view. He stated that calling R.
& P. from my court and issuing notices to Clerks
serving under me was not at all illegal. In fact both
these things were illegal. He further stated that he
issued those notices as per direction given by
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jalna. But
the work of issuing notice cannot be delegated to
Registrar. By this say he tried to teach me that the
Principal District and Sessions Judge has control
over all the Criminal Courts in the District. But
even the Principal District and Sessions Judge
{6}
crcp0117.odt
cannot interfere in my judicial work in such a
manner. Moreover, it was none of the duty of the
contemnor to remind me the powers of Principal
District and Sessions Judge. In my opinion, this
statement on the part of the contemnor is also
contemptuous."
10 The aforesaid narration persuades us to draw an
inference that the Judicial Officer i.e. District & Sessions Judge,
Mangrulpeer, District Washim, does not have due respect for the
Principal District & Sessions Judge, who is the administrative head
of the District Judiciary. The learned Judicial Officer, it appears,
instead of concentrating upon judicial work and ensuring that the
Sessions Cases/trials, wherein accused are lodged in jail as under-
trial prisoners, shall be taken up early, is indulging in other
activities like issuing worthless notices to the subordinate officials
of the District Court.
11 In our considered opinion, copy of the Reference
Application together with annexures and order passed by this
Court needs to be forwarded to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for
taking note of conduct of the concerned Judicial Officer and to
take appropriate action, if deemed necessary.
12 For the reasons recorded above, the Criminal
Contempt Reference is rejected. Copy of this order together with
copies of the Reference and annexures be placed before the Hon'ble
the Chief Justice for necessary action.
A.M.DHAVALE R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/crcp0117
