IMPORTANT POINT
In the matter of contempt of Court proceedings the facts relating to the events which have taken place subsequent to the issuance of the notices are not material for the purpose of conviction but are certainly relevant to the question of sentence.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act-Section 2-Charge of dealing with custodia legis property contrary to judgment and disobeying orders of Court-Contemnors secured decree on cross claim in suit filed by petitioner-Pending appeal thereagainst amount deposited in Court allowed to be withdrawn on furnishing Bank guarantee-Appellate Court dismissing cross-claim and allowing suit claim of petition in full-Order of restitution and deposit of amount under Bank guarantee-Appeal filed before Supreme Court-While so contemnors conceiving plan to whisk away amount deposited in Court-Got withdraw amount through well engineered plan through applications to trial Court-Repeated assurance before Supreme Court to deposit amount but not complied with-Supreme Court s directions to deposit amounts on various occasions not complied with-Resilence from unconditional offer to deposit amount-Contemnors wilfully dealt with monies in possession of Court without authority of law by careful pre-planning-Acts amounted to contempt of Court-Contemnors compounded contumacious conduct with which they were charged with further acts of contumacy-Alleged esteem for Court and sincerity of apology were falsified by unrepentent behaviour-Punishment in nature of fine not enough-Contemnors to undergo two months simple imprisonment in addition to fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.
       The facts relating to the events which have taken place subsequent to the issuance of the notices are not material for the purpose of conviction but are certainly relevant to the question of sentence. (Para 32)
       Property in custodia legis means that the property is kept in the possession and under the protection of Court. Monies deposited in Court by way of security are held by the Court in custodia legis to the credit of the party who is ultimately successful. Any other person dealing with the account so deposited does so at his or her peril and ".......…any litigative disturbance of the Court s possession without its permission amounts to contempt of its authority…....". (Para 33)
       No doubt the jurisdiction that the Court exercises in cases of alleged contempt is quasi-criminal and the Court must be satisfied on the material before it that contempt of court was in fact committed. But that satisfaction may be derived from the circumstances of the case. (Para 36)
       The circumstances obtaining in this case leave no manner of doubt that the respondents have wilfully dealt with property which was custodia legis. From the outcome of the inquiry against the Sub Judge, it is clear that the order was tainted and the dishonesty of the respondents patent. Furthermore, the rush with which the matters were concluded and the monies withdrawn by the respondents speak for itself. That this was done in furtherance of a plan to reap an illegal benefit is evidenced by the fact that even though the respondents had not filed any application for payment to them of Rs. 16 lakhs, anticipating the order that they would obtain, the respondents opened the current account in the State Bank of India, Tadepalligudem four days prior to the passing of the order dated 30th December 1985. That the account was opened in the same Branch of the Bank in which the Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem had an account, that the petitioner-bank s representative was not given any notice of the respondents cheque petition before the Sub Judge, and that the chequewas cleared and the money paid out to the respondents while the petitioner s petition of objection was filed, are all circumstances pointing to the careful pre-planning involved. Significantly, the respondents have not been able to show us on what basis they received the money. Their counter claims had been rejected by the High Court. In the appeal preferred from the High Court s decision, the respondents had not been successful in obtaining any stay. All these factors lead only to one inference and that is, that the Respondents wilfully dealt with monies in the possession of the Court without authority of law. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding the respondents guilty of the first charge. (Para 37)
       It is apparent from the facts already narrated that both the respondents have polluted the stream of justice. The respondents have continued with the contumacious conduct with impunity even after the issuance of the notices to them. In the narration of facts the phrase "order not complied with" has recurred with disturbing regularity. In addition the "unconditional offer" made was resiled from; the undertaking given to the Court was breached; adjournments were obtained on the basis of assurances of payment and settlement which they had no intention to fulfil. (Para 41)
       It is clear from all these facts that the respondents have compounded the contumacious conduct with which they were charged with further acts of contumacy. Their alleged esteem for this Court and the sincerity of their apology are falsified by their unrepentant behaviour. Given the nature of the contempt, punishment in the nature of a fine is not enough. We have therefore no hesitation in sentencing both the respondents to imprisonment in addition to payment of fine. Both of the respondents shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months in addition to making payment of a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. The fine is to be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of this judgment. In default the defaulting respondent will undergo a further period of simple imprisonment for a period of one month. (Para 45)

JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J.-This proceeding in contempt was initiated by this Court suo motu, on a prima-facie finding that the respondents 2 and 3 were guilty of contempt not only by dealing with property which was custodia legis but also by disobeying orders of Court. At the conclusion of the arguments we are of the confirmed view that the prima facie conclusion arrived at by us was correct, and that the respondents 2 and 3 are liable to be punished for their contumacious conduct.

2. The respondent No. 2 describes herself as the "sole surviving partner" of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.3 is the husband and power of attorney holder of respondent No.2.

3. The litigation out of which this proceeding arises commenced in 1975 when the petitioner-bank filed a suit against respondent No.1 inter alia for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,14,817.91. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Sub Judge, Eluru in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent No.1 raised a counter claim against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 34,48,799. On 6th July 1976, the petitioner s claim was decreed only to the extent of a sum of Rs. 1,00,418.55. The counter claim of the respondent No.1 was however allowed in its entirety with costs.

4. The petitioner-bank preferred an appeal before the High Court and prayed for stay of the execution of the decree as far as the counter claim was concerned. The High Court, by an order dated 28.12.1976, granted the stay subject to the petitioner-bank depositing Rs. 16 lakhs as well as a further sum of Rs. 48,890.95 towards costs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru. The respondent No.1 was given the liberty to withdraw the sum of Rs. 16 lakhs upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the same amount. The respondent No.1 was also given the liberty to withdraw the amount deposited on account of costs unconditionally. The petitioner-bank deposited the amount of Rs. 16 lakhs and Rs. 48,890.95 in the Subordinate Judge s Court at Eluru. The respondent No.1 withdrew both sums after furnishing a bank guarantee in favour of the Subordinate Judge for Rs. 16 lakhs. The bank which guaranteed the amount was the Karnataka Bank.

5. On 20th September, 1983 the petitioner-bank s appeal was allowed by the High Court. The High Court held that the petitioner-bank was entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 18,49,209.70 together with Rs. 8,15,324.92 as interest @ 12 p.a. According to the High Court, the petitioner s claim would have to be scaled down because of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938. The counter claim of the respondent No. 1 was dismissed in toto.

6. From this decision both the petitioner-bank and the respondent No.1 preferred appeals by way of special leave to this Court. No stay was obtained of the High Court s decision in either of the appeals.

7. During the pendency of the appeals before this Court, the petitioner-bank applied to the Subordinate Judge, Eluru for restitution of the amount which had been deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order of High Court dated 28.12.1976. The Sub Judge, Eluru directed the Karnataka Bank to deposit the sum of Rs. 16 lakhs guaranteed by it together with the interest accumulated thereon within one month. The Karnataka Bank complied with the order and the amount so deposited was allowed by the Sub Judge to be invested with the Eluru Branch of the petitioner-bank in Double Benefit Account for a period of 12 months.

8. The facts as subsequently revealed show that it was at this point that the respondents conceived a plan to whisk away this amount of Rs. 16 lakhs - a plan which was cunningly and carefully forged, link-by-link. It started with an application filed by the respondent No.1 before the District Court for transferring the application for restitution from the Sub Judge, Eluru, to the Sub Court, Tadepalligudem on the ground that there was an apprehension that the Sub Judge Eluru, would not do justice to the respondents. The petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 1645

IMPORTANT POINTIn the matter of contempt of Court proceedings the facts relating to the events which have taken place subsequent to the issuance of the notices are not material for the purpose of conviction but are certainly relevant to the question of sentence.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
In the matter of contempt of Court proceedings the facts relating to the events which have taken place subsequent to the issuance of the notices are not material for the purpose of conviction but are certainly relevant to the question of sentence.