IMPORTANT POINT
Although appellant Radha Mohanlal had submitted apology after he had been found guilty of contempt and after High Court had inflicted punishment but since it seems to be sincere and not to ward of the punishment, the same was accepted by the Apex Court.

Headnote:(i) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Appellant Radha Mohan Lal found guilty of contempt of a Single Judge of High Court of Rajasthan -High Court inflicted punishment-Appeal to Supreme Court-Apology tendered unconditionally-Apology appeared to be sincere and not to ward of the punishment-Whether be accepted? (Yes)-Punishment set aside-Order accordingly.
       Held : Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, has very candidly not made any attempt to justify the actions of Radha Mohan Lal before the High Court in filing the application as aforenoticed. Learned counsel has only argued for acceptance of the apology. Learned counsel submits that the appellant has impressive and unimpeachable credentials of being a freedom fighter and a vakil (an advocate) and Chairman of Jaipur Municipal Council. It has been further submitted that he is an old man of 82 years of age suffering from serious heart ailment and for quite some time his mobility is limited to his room under medical prescription. The appellant is a senior citizen who had no malice towards the Hon ble Judge. It is contended that during his long distinguished career, the present episode was the result of a single momentary derailment that was neither due to deliberation nor due to any motivation and once the matter was before this Court, the appellant, on his own, even before hearing, tendered unqualified apology and also volunteered to tender an unqualified and unconditional apology before the Hon ble Judge of the High Court in open Court which was done immediately after the reopening of the High Court after summer vacation in the year 1993. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, it appears that although the apology has been tendered after the appellant had been found guilty of contempt of court and after the High Court had inflicted the imprisonment on him but still the apology seems to be sincere and not to ward of the punishment. We accept the contention of Mr. Dhankar that the apology here is evidence of real contrite as also of his consciousness of wrong done by him. In the case of M.Y. Shareef & Anr. v. The Hon ble Judges of High Court of Nagpur & Ors. [(1955) 1 SCR 757], a Constitution Bench of this Court accepted the apology that was tendered before this Court for the first time. In view of the aforesaid, while we uphold the impugned judgment holding that the appellant Radha Mohan Lal committed contempt of court but accepting the apology, we set aside the punishment of simple imprisonment as also the fine imposed on him. (Paras 5, 6 and 7)
       (ii) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -Appellant Sualal Yadav Advocate found guilty of contempt of High Court and awarded punishment-Appeal to Supreme Court-Conduct of Yadav different-Instead of apologising, he persisted with same approach before Apex Court under liberty of free expression-Whether finding of contempt of Court by Yadav be affirmed? (Yes)-Whether punishment of 3 months single imprisonment be reduced to that already undergone? (Yes in the peculiar state of his age and out of practice)-Fine maintainable-Order accordingly.
       Held : The liberty of free expression as was sought to be contended by Mr. Sualal Yadav cannot be equated or confused with a licence to make unfounded and irresponsible allegations against the judiciary. The imputation that was made was clearly contemptuous. The effect is lowering of the dignity and authority of the Court and an affront to the majesty of justice. (Para 10)
       In view of clear and well settled legal position in respect of the rights and duties of advocates, we unhesitantly confirm the finding of the High Court that the appellant, Sualal Yadav, committed contempt of court. (Para 13)
       Held, however : The question now to be considered is that of sentence. The appellant has been sentenced to three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. It is painful to punish anyone and more particularly a member of legal profession for contempt of Court but in order to secure the ends of justice, in extreme cases, it becomes the duty of the Court to do so. Ordinarily, on the facts of the case as abovenoticed, we would have been very reluctant to interfere with the sentence imposed by the High Court but for the age of the appellant. He is a senior citizen. His age is 81 years. We are told that he is hardly in active practice anymore. He is stated to have already undergone one day imprisonment. Despite the fact that he has been reckless and persistent, yet we think that object of punishment will be served by reducing three months simple imprisonment to one already undergone by the appellant while maintaining the fine and the imprisonment in default of payment of fine. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-By the impugned judgment and order dated 31st March, 1993, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant Radha Mohan Lal (Criminal Appeal No. 445/93) and his advocate, appellant Sualal Yadav (Criminal Appeal No. 449/93) have committed the contempt of court. Both have been sentenced to three months simple imprisonment each besides fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.

2. The basis for initiation and punishment for contempt of court is the averment made in para 4 of the application dated 18th September, 1991 that had been filed before a learned Single Judge of the High Court in a civil revision petition which was listed before the learned Judge. The said para 4 reads as under:

"That apart from it, the undersigned has been informed by his client -Shri Radha Mohan Lal Vakil Ex. Chairman of the Municipal Council, Jaipur, that he along with other non-petitioners have moved a complaint in writing against Hon ble Shri R.S. Kejriwal to the Hon ble Chief Justice requesting him to list the above revision before a Bench of which Hon ble Shri R.S. Kejriwal is not a member as they have reasonable grounds to believe that no impartial justice would be imparted from this Bench.

In the light of the above exceptional and extraordinary facts and circumstances of the matter, the above revision may kindly be allowed to be listed before a Bench not constituted of the Hon ble Mr. Justice Kejriwal as the non-petitioners are known to have lost faith in this Bench for reason obvious. In case the above revision is not allowed to be listed before another Bench the applicant may be allowed sufficient time to approach the Supreme Court for transfer of this case."

3. The revision petition arose out of an interim order passed in a civil suit that had been filed by appellant Radha Mohan Lal and four others in representative capacity allegedly to ensure that access to the temple which was the subject matter of the suit is not obstructed as a consequence of encroachments by the Rajasthan Sports Council. The interim order granted in their favour had been assailed in the revision petition. It is claimed that some observations made by the learned Judge on 13th September, 1991 in course of hearing of arguments led to about 50 senior citizens representing to the Chief Justice that the petition be heard by some other Judge. On 18th September, 1991, when the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, the fact of representation having been made to the Chief Justice was given out and this led to the filing of the application dated 18th September, 1991. Ultimately, the averments made in the application led to initiation of proceedings for contempt of court and the finding of contempt and punishment on the appellants as aforestated. Appellant Sualal Yadav was the advocate for Radha Mohan Lal both in the revision petition as also in the contempt petition.

4. When Criminal Appeal No.445 of 1993 came up for hearing for the first time before this Court on 3rd June, 1993, appellant Radha Mohan Lal, who was present in Court, gave an undertaking to this Court through his counsel that he shall file in this court on affidavit within one week an unconditional apology for the allegations made by him against Hon ble Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal of the High Court of Rajasthan and shall appear in person in open court before the Hon ble Judge and shall tender such apology to him. Accepting that undertaking this Court directed stay of the impugned order. In terms of the order dated 3rd June, 1993, the appellant on 9th June, 1993 filed his affidavit tendering unconditional and without any qualification his apology for any statement made or pleaded before Hon ble Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal in the pending revision petition. It further appears that the appellant, in accord with his undertaking, also tendered apology before Hon ble Mr. Justice R.S. Kejriwal.

5. Lea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 166

IMPORTANT POINTAlthough appellant Radha Mohanlal had submitted apology after he had been found guilty of contempt and after High Court had inflicted punishment but since it seems to be sincere and not to ward of the punishment, the same was accepted by the Apex Court.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Although appellant Radha Mohanlal had submitted apology after he had been found guilty of contempt and after High Court had inflicted punishment but since it seems to be sincere and not to ward of the punishment, the same was accepted by the Apex Court.