Back
2003 Supreme(SC) 233
2003(2) Supreme 323
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Assam High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
D.S. Poonia etc. -Appellant
versus
Yumnam Dimbajit Singh & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 646 of 2000
With
Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2000
Decided on 25-2-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mukul Rohtgi, Additional Solicitor General, S.W.A. Qadri, Navin Prakash, N. Ganpathy, Ashok Kr. Singh and Sapam Biswajit, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
It would serve the ends of justice if the impugned order recording conviction and imposing of sentence for criminal contempt is modified by setting aside the sentence of incarceration imposed on both the appellants but maintaining fine of Rs. 2000/- on each of them. Appellant 1 will also pay costs.
Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 12-Respondent 1 flouted order of Court not to extend period of deputation of respondent 2-Court s order dated 15.12.1999 obtained by practicing fraud by respondent 1-High Court punished respondent 1 with incarceration for one month and fine of Rs. 2000/- and respondent 2 with incarceration for 15 days and fine of Rs. 1000/- -Appeal to Supreme Court -Whether sentence be modified (Yes, in the facts of the case) 2002(1) SCC 766 relied on.
Held (relying on 2002(1) SCC 766) : In our considered view, in the light of what is stated above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it would subserve the ends of justice if the impugned order is modified by setting aside the sentence of incarceration passed against both the appellants and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed on each of them. We accordingly modify the impugned order. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 646/2000 shall pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- within six weeks which amount shall be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 627/2000 shall pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost to the respondent No. 1 within six weeks. The appeals are disposed of accordingly in the above terms. (Paras 8 and 9)
JUDGMENT
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-These two appeals are filed aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 14-7-2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 1/2000. In this judgment, parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the contempt petition. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of these appeals are that respondent No. 2 was an employee in Manipur Electronics Development Corporation (MANITRON); pursuant to the instructions of the Election Commission for computerization of electoral rolls, respondent No. 2 was appointed on deputation for a period of one year as Assistant Chief Electoral Officer (ACEO) by an order dated 7.11.1997; since computerization work could not be completed, his deputation was sought to be extended for one more year with effect from 12.11.1998; the petitioner challenged this order of extension in Writ Petition Civil Rule No. 1187/98 inter alia contending that since respondent No. 2 was serving in a Corporation, an autonomous body it was not permissible to take him on deputation; only a State services Officer could be taken on deputation and not an officer belonging to the Corporation; accepting this contention, the writ petition was allowed quashing the order of extension given to respondent No. 2; while quashing the order, from the relevant file the High Court found that the services of the second respondent as ACEO was no more required in the Department of Election as computerization of electoral rolls had been completed; the respondent No. 2 was only B-Tech (Electronics and Communication) and not a computer engineer; despite the office objection raised, respondent No. 1 extended the period of deputation of respondent No. 2 for one more year by overruling the objections. Respondent No.2 filed Writ Appeal No. 108/99 against the order passed in the writ petition; the writ appeal was admitted on 24.6.1999 and an interim order was passed in the following terms: -
"In the meanwhile, the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 1187/98 is stayed. But we direct that the deputation of the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 108/99, Sri W. Sudhirkumar Singh will not be extended beyond the existing period of deputation expiring on 11.11.1999. We further direct that the Draft Recruit Rules for recruitment to the post of Assistant Chief Election Officer will be finalized by the end of September, 1999 and recruitment to the post of Assistant Chief Election Officer will be completed by 11.11.1999. "
2. In the aforementioned interim order, respondent no. 1 was restrained from extending the period of deputation of the respondent no. 2 beyond 11.11.1999. At the same time, a direction also was given for framing the recruitment rules for recruitment to the post of ACEO and to finalise the recruitment before 11.11.1999.
3. When these directions given in the above extracted interim order passed by the Division Bench were not followed, the petitioner filed a Civil Contempt Petition No. 357/99. Responding to the direction issued in this contempt petition, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 produced copy of the order dated 11.11.1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 purportedly in compliance with the direction given in the said interim order. Looking to the said order, the court on 15.12.1999 closed the Civil Contempt Petition No. 357/99 so far it related to the respondent no. 1.
4. Despite the order dated 11.11.1999 passed by the respondent No. 1, at the time of hearing of the Civil Contempt Petition No. 357/99 and obtaining a favourable order in respect of the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 2 was still functioning as ACEO as appeared in the letter dated 30.11.1999. Further, the respondent No. 2 had received goods supplied by MANITRON on 13.12.1999 as ACEO which led to filing of the present contempt petition which was originally registered as Contempt Case (C) No. 4/2000. On 3.2.2000 when the conduct of the respondent No. 2 was brought to th
