THE STATE Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN
This matter arises from Criminal Original No. 56 of 2000, initiated after the respondent misbehaved with, interfered with the official duties of, and attempted to bribe a court-appointed bailiff during the execution of a habeas corpus recovery warrant. The core legal question concerns the liability of the respondent for committing contempt of court by obstructing its bailiff and offering a bribe. The court held that the respondent's actions constituted contempt, accepting the unrefuted statements and report of the bailiff. Consequently, the court convicted the respondent under the relevant contempt provisions, taking a lenient view in light of an unconditional apology, and sentenced him to simple imprisonment along with a fine, while granting the benefit of statutory time remission under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that interference with and offering bribes to a court bailiff acting as a representative of the court constitutes punishable contempt, though an unconditional apology may be considered for mitigation of sentence.
- Does interfering with a court bailiff during the execution of a warrant constitute contempt of court?
- Can an unconditional apology mitigate the sentence in a contempt of court proceeding?
- Whether the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to a sentence awarded for contempt of court?
- Section 3, Contempt of Court Act
- Section 4, Contempt of Court Act
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This order will dispose of Criminal Original No,56 of 2000 which arises out in the Criminal Miscellaneous No,1557/H of 2000. Facts of the case are that a bailiff was deputed to recover the detenu, when the bailiff went to recover the detenu, present respondent misbehaved with the bailiff and tried to give him bribe. In this regard, paragraph No,3 of the report of the bailiff, dated 2-10- 2000 is reproduced below:-- ' "When I was recording the raid proceedings in the Daily Diary of the police station and came .At the stage when I was taking down the police version then one Muhammad Amin alias Bhola unnecessarily interfered into my official duty and tried to restrain me from recording the police version in Rozenamcha and offered bribe for showing favour to the petitioner side and I took down this fact as well in the Daily Diary. When I tried to ask Muhammad Amin alias Bhola Pehlwan that he should not interfere into the official function then he became infuriated and hurled filthy abuses."
2. Notice was issued to the present respondent, he filed reply. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent is. First offender. He submits an unconditional apology and prays that he may be forgiven.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent. In the instant case, respondent misbehaved with the bailiff, who is the representative of this Court, he has not only misbehaved with the bailiff but he also tried to give him bribe. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the bailiff and the said statement was also made before me by the bailiff in this regard. As the respondent has tendered an unconditional apology. I take a lenient view, he is convicted under sections 3/4 of Contempt of Court Act and sentenced to undergo one month's S.I. With a fine of Rs,5,000 and in default one month's S.I. With the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Because he was taken into custody by the police by the order of this Court on 4-10-2000. Disposed of accordingly.