Bombay High Court: In the present case, a letter dated 22-1-2025 (‘the impugned letter’) was issued by the District Judge-I and the Sessions Judge, Beed (Trial Judge), to the Directorate General of Police (‘DGP’), whereby the DGP was requested to frame Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’) for giving evidence through video conferencing to ensure maintenance of decorum in the Court. The impugned letter was issued due to the petitioner’s improper conduct while giving evidence through video conferencing, by way of a mobile phone in a trial before the Trial Court.
The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale, JJ., noted that the petitioner while on video conferencing, kept muting his microphone and speaking to someone else in the room and when the Trial Judge admonished him not to speak to anybody while deposing, he laughed. The Court held that there was no infirmity or illegality on the Trial Judge’s part in issuing the impugned letter as the manner in which the petitioner conducted himself during the proceedings was sure to affect the proceedings in the trial.
Background
The petitioner, a Senior Police Officer attached to the Nerul Police Station, Navi Mumbai, was required to appear before the Trial Court on 20-1-2025, to give evidence in a case, of which he was the Investigating Officer. Since the petitioner was on duty in supervising arrangements for the Coldplay Concert to be held in Mumbai from 18-1-2025 to 21-1-2025, the petitioner could not have reached the Beed District Court physically and thus, appeared before the Trial Court from his office chambers through his mobile phone. While recording his evidence, when one constable tried to enter the chamber without knocking, the petitioner raised his hands to stop him and then apologized to the Court. However, on 31-1-2025, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 22-1-2025 issued by the Trial Judge seeking an explanation as to why action should not be initiated against him for contempt of Court. On 19-2-2025, he received another show cause notice from the office of the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Mumbai seeking an explanation in terms of the impugned letter.
It was submitted that the internet connection was poor, and the microphone was intermittently getting muted. Thus, there was no intention on the petitioner’s part to disrespect the Trial Judge and there was no impropriety, nor was his conduct contemptuous. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner apprehended serious prejudice to his career as he received a notice dated 6-2-2025 from the DGP to show cause as to why his annual increment should not be stopped for his conduct before the Trial Judge. Therefore, the petitioner prayed that the impugned letter should be quashed and set aside.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner deposed that he did not have the necessary papers, while the Court was informed that the necessary papers were already sent to the petitioner well in advance. Further, he kept muting his microphone and speaking to someone else in the room and when the Trial Judge admonished him not to speak to anybody while deposing, the petitioner laughed. The petitioner, despite repeated warnings by the Court to answer properly, kept telling the APP that everything was written in the panchanama. The petitioner kept answering his phone and on being questioned by the Trial Judge, he stated that he had to answer the call of the Commissioner of Police.
The Court opined that prima facie, the petitioner’s behaviour, reeks of insolent conduct on his part and the mere fact of being permitted to appear and depose from the comfort and convenience of his office did not allow him to take the Court proceedings casually. As recording of evidence was a crucial part of the trial, the petitioner’s evidence was highly significant considering that he was the Investigating Officer in the case.
The Court also opined that the manner in which the petitioner conducted himself during the proceedings was sure to cause obstruction in the administration of justice and affect the proceedings in the trial, therefore, the District Judge’s annoyance in the impugned letter could not be considered as exaggerated or misconceived. The Court further stated that a request by the Trial Judge to the petitioner’s superior Officer to frame SOPs for the investigating agencies in giving evidence through video conference did not imply any personal vendetta of the Trial Judge against the petitioner.
The Court dismissed the petition and held that there was no infirmity or illegality on the Trial Judge’s part in issuing the impugned letter. Further, the petitioner was given liberty to deal with the show cause notice issued to him by his Senior Officer on its own merits.
[Bramhanand Raosaheb Naikwadi v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1906 of 2025, decided on 16-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Rizwan Merchant with Rajabhau Chaudhari, for the Petitioner.
For the Respondents: V.B. Konde Deshmukh, Add. P.P., for the Respondents-State.
