ARUN PASWAN, S.I. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

ARUN PASWAN, S.I. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

The acts of the police officers in shouting abusive slogans and threatening judges outside the court premises constituted criminal contempt. The High Court had jurisdiction to try and punish for contempt as the actions were not committed in the view or presence of the Court so the bar under Section 10 of the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Arun Paswan, S.I.; Appellant: Sakaldeo Yadav, S.I.; Appellant: Syed Ahmad Khan, S.I.; Appellant: Sudarshan Prasad Mandal, Dy. Superintendent of Police; Respondent: State of Bihar and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Criminal Contempt, Court Jurisdiction, Natural Justice
Criminal Law Contempt of Court Criminal Contempt Court Jurisdiction Natural Justice

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arun Paswan, S.I.

Appellant

Sakaldeo Yadav, S.I.

Appellant

Syed Ahmad Khan, S.I.

Appellant

Sudarshan Prasad Mandal, Dy. Superintendent of Police

Appellant

State of Bihar and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police officers committed criminal contempt by shouting slogans and using abusive language against judges outside court premises
  2. 2 Whether High Court had jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, given the acts were allegedly outside court view
  3. 3 Whether right to natural justice was breached by not allowing cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

The acts of the police officers in shouting abusive slogans and threatening judges outside the court premises constituted criminal contempt. The High Court had jurisdiction to try and punish for contempt as the actions were not committed in the view or presence of the Court so the bar under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was not attracted. The defence of lack of knowledge and absence was rejected by factual findings and evidence. The alleged breach of natural justice was not established as opportunities were available and not availed.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appellants S.I. Arun Paswan, S.I. Sakaldeo Yadav, and S.I. Syed Ahmad Khan sentenced to two months simple imprisonment.
  • Appellant Sudarshan Prasad Mandal, Dy. Superintendent of Police, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days.