SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 127

1999(2) Supreme 25
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
G.T. Nanavati & N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Miss Sophy Kelly & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Chandrakant Ganpat & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 1987
Decided on 4-2-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : A.S.S. Pasrich, Advocate for M/s. JBD & Co..
For the Respondent : Pramod Swarup, Advocate, (NP).
For the State : G.B. Sathe, D.M. Nargolkar, Advocates.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -Section 19(1)(b)-Appeal against convic­tion-Appellant convicted for wilfully flouting order passed by School Tribunal, Bombay-Sen­tenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and to undergo detention in civil prison for 15 days-Plea that at time of convic­tion appellant was aged about 70 years and now she is 83 years old and therefore to remit sentence of detention - Plea accepted-Sentence of detention passed by High Court set aside.

       

Judgment

Nanavati, J.-The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act as she has been found guilty of having committed civil contempt. She has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and also to undergo detention in a civil prison for 15 days.

2. As it appears from the judgment of the High Court, the appellant had wilfully flouted the interim order dated 19.8.1986 passed by the Schools Tribunal, Bombay, and not paid the dues of its employees (non-teaching staff).

3. What is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was about 70 years old when she was convicted by the High Court and now she is about 83 years old and, therefore, this court should deal with her sympathetically and remit the sentence of deten­tion in civil prison.

4. We have also heard learned counsel for the State. Considering the changed circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is now not neces­sary to send the appellant to civil prison for detention, as ordered. We, therefore, allow this appeal partly and set aside that part of the order passed by the High Court whereby she has been directed to under­go detention in civil prison for 15 days.

(C.R.) Appeal partly allowed.

************

Parallel Citations of other Journals :

Miss Sophy Kelly & Anr. v. Chandrakant Ganpat & Ors., 1999(2) Supreme 25 : 1999(1) Crimes 78 : (1999) 2 SCC 427 : 1999(1) JT 452 : 1999(1) CCR 90 : 1999(1) Crl. LR 456 : 1999(1) UJ 594 : AIR 1999 SC 1042 : 1999(1) JCC 198 : 1999(3) LLN 42 : 1999(2) LLJ 590

00024

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top