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

2004 Supreme(SC) 1538

N.S.HEGDE, B.P.SINGH, S.B.SINHA
BIJAYINI DASH – Appellant
Versus
LOKNATH MISHRA – Respondent


ORDER

1. The appellants who have been convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act for criminal contempt by the High Court have been sentenced to one-month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5000. In these statutory appeals, the said conviction and sentence has been challenged by the appellants on various grounds including that they have not made the derogatory statement attributed to them. But we do not think it is necessary for us to go into that question since the appellants are entitled to succeed in these appeals on a technical ground.

2. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, the petition seeking the f punishment for contempt can be invoked by a party only with the prior written consent of the Advocate General of the State under Section 15 of the said Act. This position in law is now well settled by judgments of this Court in the cases of State of Kerala v. M.S. Mani1 and Bal Thackrey v. Barish Pimpalkhute2 wherein it is held that prior written sanction of the Advocate General under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act is a mandatory g requirement for invoking the contempt jurisdiction of the court by a private party.

3. In the instant appeals, it is not disputed that the comp





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