GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR.versusG. LAKSHMAN REDDY AND ANR.

                  GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANR.                                  A
                               v.
                  G. LAKSHMAN REDDY AND ANR.

                          NOVEMBER I, 1996

            [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                             B

      Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:

       S.12-Compound wall constructed to protect police quarters-Suit
filed for demolition of the wall on the ground that it had obstructed public   C
 way-Ex-parte decree granted since police refused to receive the notice-
 Warrant issued for demolition of the wall-Police officials obstructing
execution of the warrant-Court officers taken to police station-Held:
 The Police Officials concerned had no regard for law and they had taken
law into their hands obstructing the execution of the warrant-Thus they
had clearly and wilfully with obstinate bravido committed contempt             D
punishable under S.12--Contemnors convicted and sentenced.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CivH Appeal No. 14821 of
1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.95 of the Andhra Pradesh          E
High Court in C.R.P. No. 2433 of 1955.

        Mrs. K. Amreshwari and G. Prabhakar for the Appellants.

        L.N. Rao, R.S. Krishnan and P.P. Singh for the Respondents.            F
        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Leave granted.

                                                                               G
        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             H
                                  343
    344                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A 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.
B   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,
    Narasimha Raju, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Laxminarayana and other
    police force had gone there and obstructed the execution of the warrant.
C   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.
D
         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 sue motu action and issued notice on April 21, 1996 to Circle Inspector
  of Police, 4- Town, Narasimha Raju, Sub-Inspector of Police, 4-Town,
  P.S. Laxminarayana and Head Constable Murali, 4-Town Police Station,
E 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
  admitted their presence and stated that there were extenuating circumstances;
  they pleaded that there was a commotion; law and order problem was
F 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
G those statements, we directed the District Judge, Nizamabad to examine
  the persons and submit the report with his firtdings. 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, Bailiff G. Vinayak Raj and
H S.A. Ali Process server but Central Nazir has no power to direct them to
                 GOVT. OF AP. v. G. LAKSHMAN REDDY                       345


accompany Madhusudhan Bhatt and Venkaiah to execute the warrant. The             A
 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 infonned 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   B
they had taken the com1 officers to the police station. Whether or not the
court officers were wrongly confined in the police station, is a matter now
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?            C
The District Judge has recorded the finding that two Head Constables and
Reserve Suo-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;     D
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.                                                              E
       It is also stated by P. W.6 that after the wall was demolished, the
police had reconstructed the wall. This would show defiant attitude 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       F
and P.W.6 and public; P.W.6 seemed to be insisting upon the demolition
of the 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         G
their hand 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. Therefore, they have clearly and wilfully
with obstinate bravido, committed contempt punishable under Section 12           H
   346                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A 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.
B The learned District Judge has 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?
C 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,
D 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,
E 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 12 to pay a fine ofRs. 1,000 each.
  In default, they should further undergo sentence of 15 days. The fine should
  be paid personally from their pockets or deducted from their salary. The
F 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-parts 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
G 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 sent 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.

H G.N.                                                     Appeal dismissed.