http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: G. LAKSHMAN REDDY & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted      We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.      A compound  wall was  admittedly constructed  at Police Lines in  Nizamabad Town  in  Andhra  Pradesh,  Statedly  to protect the  police quarters. A suit was filed in OS No. 123 of 1991  on the  file of  the District Munsif, Nizamabad for demolition of  the  wall  on  the  ground  that  the  police construction of  the wall  had obstructed public way. Decree was granted,  though exparte on September 12, 1991 since the police  refused   to  receive   the  notice.  The  execution application was  laid by  the decree-holder  on December  1, 1991. The  Court had issued notice on execution. Thereafter, warrant was issued on February 7, 1996 for demolition of the wall. The warrant was entrusted to one Shri Madhusudhan Bhat for  enforcement.  He  went  along  with  Venkaiah,  another bailiff, Syed  Ahmad Ali  and G.Vinayak Raj process survers, along with  workmen to  the site to demolish the constructed wall. While  they were  in the  process of  demolishing  the wall, it  is now clear from the record that Circle Inspector of Police,  Narsimha  Raju,  the  Sub-Inspector  of  Police, Laxminarayana and  other police  force had  gone  there  and obstructed the execution of the warrant. They took the court officers to  the police  station. It  is the  report of  the bailiffs that  they were  wrongly  confined  in  the  police station, despite  the fact  that they had informed that they are Court  officers and had came to the spot with their duty to execute  the warrant.  On the  basis of  that  report,  a complaint came  to be  filed and is pending decision, So, we need not proceed further on that issue.      When the matter was brought to out notice in the appeal filed by  the Government  agent on  the refusal to set aside ex-parte decree,  we had  taken Suo  Motu action  and issued notice on  April 21,  1996 to Circle Inspector of Police, 4- Town, Narsimha  Raju,  Sub-Inspector  of  Police,  4-  Town, P.S.Laxminarayana and  Head Constable Murali, 4- Town Police Station, Niranjan,  Head Constable,  4- Town  Police Station and Hameed,  Reserve Sub-Inspector,  Special Party, Pursuant Thereto, Narasimha  Raju, Circle Inspector of Police and the Sub-Inspector   of    Police    Laxminarayana    extenuating

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

circumstances; they  pleaded that there was a commotion; law and order  problem was  created by  the mob  on  account  of pelting stone by the police personnel and the public at each other. There were about 300 to 400 people gathered there. To disburse the  mob, they  had used  force to  defuse law  and order situation.  They pleaded  that they  did not know that the court officers had come there to demolish the wall. As a consequence they  had no  intention to violate the orders of the court  in execution  of the  warrant. In  view of  those statements, we  directed the  District judge,  Nizamabad  to examine the persons and submit the report with his findings, The learned district Judge in his report dated July 19. 1996 has recorded  the findings  that Madhusudhan  Bhatt and  the above said  court officers  and workmen had gone to  execute the warrant  for demolition  of the  wall. He found that the Central Nazir had entrusted to P.Venkaiah, and G.Vinayak Raj ad S.A.  Ali but  Central Nazir has not power to direct them to accompany  Madhusudhan Bhatt  and Venkaiah to execute the warrant. The  plea of  the Inspector  and the  Sub-Inspector that there  was a  commotion and  law and order problem. was found false  and baseless;  no one  sustained any  injury by either side nor was any complaint registered in that behalf. the court  officers informed  them that  they had gone there with the  warrant to demolish the compound wall and the Sub- Inspector pushed  one of  the  bailiffs  forcibly  into  the police jeep. This is also an admitted position that they had taken the  court officers  to the police station. Whether or not the  court officers  were wrongly confined in the police station, is  a matter  not pending  trial Therefore, we need not go into the question.      The question  is:  whether  the  police  personnel  had obstructed  the   execution  of   the  warrant  and  whether committed contempt  of the  court? The  District  Judge  has recorded the  finding that  two Head  Constables and Reserve Sub-Inspector were  not identified  nor  spoken  to  by  the Senior Advocate  examined as witness No.6 or the bailiffs or the process  server as  among the  police personnel who were present. But  the fact  that remains  is  that  these  three officers have  specifically taken  a plea of alibi. the fact that they  have taken  plea of  alibi would  establish their indirect  admission;  but  they  attempted  to  prove  their presence elsewhere. Otherwise, where was no need for them to plead alibi.  the district  Judge has rejected their plea of alibi that  they were  not present in the town on that date. Thus, it would show that among the police personnel the five persons, stated  above, were  present at  the time  when the warrant of execution was effected by the court officers.      It is  also stated  by P.W.6  that after  the wall  was demolished, the  police  had  reconstructed  of  the  police having no  regard for  law; it  is a contumacious conduct on the part  of  police  personnel.  There  appeared  to  be  a negotiation between  the police and P.W. 6 and public; P.W.6 seemed to  be insisting upon the demolition of reconstructed wall or  to provide  free passage to the public by opening a gate  in   the  wall   that  obstructs   the  passage.   The negotiations  have   failed.  It   would  appear   that  the Superintendent of  Police met  the District Judge to apprise the later  of the  situation. that  would clearly  establish that the  police personnel  have no  regard for law and they have taken  the law  into their  had obstructing  the  court officers in performance of the public duties in execution of the warrant  obtained by the decree-holder for demolition of the wall  merely because  they are the police personnel they have no  right to  take law  into  their  hands,  unlawfully obstruct  the   court  officers   executing   the   warrant.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Therefore, they  have clearly  and wilfully  with  obstinate bravido, committed  contempt punishable  under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.      The question  then would  be:  as  to  what  punishment should be  imposed on  them? It is seen that P.W.1 Inspector and the Sub-Inspector have specifically taken the stand that there was  a commotion  for disbursement  of which  they had used force; this stand is now clearly found to be false. The learned District Judge had recorded a finding that they have spoken falsehood.  Under these  circumstances, they  have no regard for  truth. They have taken the law into their hands. The question,  therefore,  is:  whether  the  acceptance  of apology or  imposition of  the fine,  as contended  by  Smt. K.Amreshwari, learned  senior counsel  would be an insult to the injury;  could that  be accepted  as a justification for imposing lessor  punishment? Having  regard to the facts and circumstances of  the case,  we are  of the considered  view that the  Circle Inspector  and  the  Sub_Inspector  namely, Narasimha Raju  and Sri  Laxminarayana are  required  to  be punished. Accordingly,  they are  convicted under Section 12 and directed  to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months.  they should  also, in addition, pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Each should pay Rs. 2,000/-; in default, they shall be required  to further  undergo a  sentence of 15 days. the fine shall  be payable  personally from  their pockets.  The superintendent of  Police Nizamabad  Should deduct  the same from their salary and have it credited to the court account.      With regard to two Head Constables and the Reserve Sub- Inspector, we  think that  they did  not play prominent role though they  were members  of the  obstructing party for the execution of  the warrant. Therefore, they are convicted and sentenced under  Section 122  to pay  a fine  of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default, they should further undergo sentence of 15 days. They fine should further under go sentence of 15 days. They fine  should be  paid personally  from their pockets or deducted from  their salary.  The Superintendent  of  Police Shall equally  have the  fine credited to the court account. The contempt  proceedings are  accordingly  allowed  to  the above extent. The appeal filed by the state against ex-parte decree as  confirmed by  the High  court is  dismissed.  The accused are  directed to  surrender immediately  before  the District Judge,  Nizamabad, within one week from the date of the receipt of the order by the District Judge. The Registry is directed  to communicate this order to the District Judge Nizamabad, A.P.  the District  Judge is  directed  to  issue notice to  them. On  their surrender, he should send them to undergo  the   sentence  in   Central   Jail   Chanchalgadh, Hyderabad, A.P.  The District  Judge is directed to submit a report of the compliance of above direction to the registrar of this Court.