Cr.O.C.P. No.39 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.O.C.P. No.39 of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 11, 2011 Court on its own motion .....PETITIONER Versus Inspector Murari Lal ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A. N. JINDAL --- Present: None. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The instant contempt proceedings were initiated in the year 1998 on a reference made by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hisar under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating contempt proceedings against Murari Lal, Inspector (respondent herein) for making the statement in the Court in a subsequent case. In that statement, he had stated that his previous statement was not correctly recorded by the Court. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hisar sent the reference that the aforesaid conduct of the respondent Murari Lal amounts to scandalize and lower down the dignity of the Court and the same amounts to `criminal contempt' within Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). In the year 1998, only one attempt was made to serve notice of the aforesaid contempt which was received back unserved with the report Cr.O.C.P. No.39 of 1998 -2- that the officer had been transferred to Hisar. Thereafter the case was never listed, and no fresh notice was issued to the respondent. Now the case has been listed for final disposal. We have perused the reference made by the Additional District & Sessions Judge. In this case, the police put up two separate challans against two persons, namely, Sharma Singh and Dharam Singh, who were travelling in the same jeep, for the recovery of opium from their conscious possession. Murari Lal, Inspector was the Investigating Officer in both cases. In case of Sharma Singh, respondent Murari Lal appeared as a witness and stated that the personal search of Sharma Singh was conducted after conducting the search of Dharam Singh, accused and then recovery was effected from Sharma Singh, accused. But while appearing in the second case, in his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not stated in case against Sharma Singh before the Court that firstly Dharam Singh was searched and after completing entire investigation, he searched accused Sharma Singh and till then they did not suspect that Sharma Singh was having some contraband. When he was confronted with the previous statement Ex. DD recorded in the earlier case he had stated that his statement Ex.DD was wrongly recorded by the Court. Only on the said basis the reference was made for initiating the contempt proceedings against respondent Murari Lal. In our opinion, the aforesaid conduct does not fall under the definition of criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act. Whether previous statement of the respondent was correctly recorded or not Cr.O.C.P. No.39 of 1998 -3- is a question of fact. If the subsequent statement of the respondent is found to be incorrect or false, it amounts to perjury and the respondent is liable to be punished for the same. The Court can initiate inquiry and proceedings against the respondent for the offence of perjury by following the procedure prescribed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. But it is not clear from the reference whether the statement to the aforesaid extent was believed or not and what was the result of the said criminal case. In view of these facts, it will not be desirable at this belated stage to get the notice served on the respondent for initiating contempt proceedings against him. More than twelve years have elapsed and by now the respondent might have retired from the service. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that it will be in the interest of justice now to drop these proceedings. In view of the aforesaid, the contempt petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 11, 2011 ( A. N. JINDAL ) vkg JUDGE