2010 Supreme(SC) 185

2010 (1) Supreme 765
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. Panchal and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Sahdeo @ Sahdeo Singh — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 527 of 2002
with
Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2002
Decided on : 23-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
Every statutory provision requires strict adherence, for the reason that the Statute creates rights in favour of persons concerned.
2. In absence of the charge(s), a delinquent/accused/alleged contemnor may not be able to furnish any defence as he is not aware as to what charge(s) he is required to meet.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act,1971-Section 23-Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 -Appeals against judgment and order of High Court passed in Criminal Contempt Proceedings , convicting the appellants for not complying with directions issued by Apex Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal , and sentencing them for six months’ imprisonment and also imposing a fine to the tune of Rs.2000/- each- Apart from that a direction had been issued to the State Government to terminate the services of appellants after holding disciplinary proceedings- In the instant cases, record revealed that Habeas Corpus petition was taken by the High Court on 30.07.1997 and directed the District Judge,Ghaziabad to hold the inquiry on the allegations made in the Habeas Corpus petition- District Judge submitted the report on 03.12.1997-The Court considered the case on 4.12.1997 and initiated contempt proceedings against appellants and others suo motu- Matter was remanded to the District Judge for further inquiry in view of the fact that S was not heard in the earlier inquiry- The District Judge, Ghaziabad, submitted the supplementary inquiry report on 12.07.1998- After hearing the parties the judgment was reserved on 12.03.1999. -Thereafter, it was listed on 14.12.2001 i.e. after 2 years and 9 months for fresh arguments-However, the counsel for parties stated that nothing more was required to be submitted except what had been argued earlier- The judgment was pronounced on 20.12.2001- It was apparent from the order sheets itself that the matter remained pending before Court, so far as the contempt proceedings were concerned, for more than three years which itself was in contravention of the true spirit of the purpose of initiation of the contempt proceedings-Hence held that contempt proceedings had been concluded without ensuring the compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rules 1952- The appellants had never been informed as what were the charges against them- The relevant documents on the basis of which the High Court had taken a prima facie view while initiating the contempt proceedings suo motu, had not been made available to them- The notice itself was not only defective, but inaccurate and totally mis-leading- The facts and circumstances of the case warranted reversal of said judgment and order- Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court set aside -Appeals allowed. (Paras 26, 27)

        Contempt Proceedings –Scope and ambit of -High Court has a power to initiate the contempt proceedings suo motu for ensuring compliance of the orders passed by the Court- However, contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the same standard of proof is required in the same manner as in other criminal cases- The alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the Criminal Jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt-There must be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of justice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within the ambit of the said provision- The alleged contemnor is to be informed as what is the charge, he has to meet- Thus, specific charge has to be framed in precision-The alleged contemnor may ask the Court to permit him to cross-examine the witnesses i.e. deponents of affidavits, who have deposed against him- In spite of the fact that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, provisions of “Cr.P.C.” and Evidence Act are not attracted for the reason that proceedings have to be concluded expeditiously- Thus, the trial has to be concluded as early as possible- The case should not rest only on surmises and conjectures- There must be clear and reliable evidence to substantiate the allegations against the alleged contemnor- The proceedings must be concluded giving strict adherence to the statutory Rules framed for the purpose. (Para 20)

        Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 -Appeals against judgment and order of High Court passed in Criminal Contempt Proceedings , convicting the appellants for not complying with directions issued by Apex Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal , and sentencing them for six months’ imprisonment and also imposing a fine to the tune of Rs.2000/- each-The Rules 1952 provided for a specific procedure to hold the trial in contempt cases-The Rules 1952 mandatorily require the framing of charge(s) and furnishing the copy of the documents to alleged contemnor on the basis of which, the charges have been framed-In the instant cases, there had been no compliance of these mandatory provisions contained in the Rules- In absence of the charge(s), a delinquent/accused/alleged contemnor may not be able to furnish any defence as he is not aware as to what charge(s) he is required to meet- Every statutory provision requires strict adherence, for the reason that the Statute creates rights in favour of persons concerned- The impugned judgment suffered from non-observance of the principles of natural justice and not ensuring the compliance of Statutory Rules, 1952- Thus, the trial itself suffered from material procedural defect and stood vitiated-Impugned judgment and order, so far as the conviction of appellants in Contempt proceedings was concerned, held liable to be set aside. (Paras 22 to 24)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeals have been filed against judgment and order of High Court passed in Criminal Contempt Proceedings , convicting the appellants for not complying with directions issued by Apex Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal , and sentencing them for six months’ imprisonment and also imposing a fine to the tune of Rs.2000/- each.Apart from that a direction had been issued to the State Government to terminate the services of appellants after holding disciplinary proceedings.

       Findings of the Court :

        In the instant cases, record revealed that Habeas Corpus petition was taken by the High Court on 30.07.1997 and directed the District Judge,Ghaziabad to hold the inquiry on the allegations made in the Habeas Corpus petition. District Judge submitted the report on 03.12.1997.The Court considered the case on 4.12.1997 and initiated contempt proceedings against appellants and others suo motu. Matter was remanded to the District Judge for further inquiry in view of the fact that S was not heard in the earlier inquiry. The District Judge, Ghaziabad, submitted the supplementary inquiry report on 12.07.1998. After hearing the parties the judgment was reserved on 12.03.1999. Thereafter, it was listed on 14.12.2001 i.e. after 2 years and 9 months for fresh arguments. However, the counsel for parties stated that nothing more was required to be submitted except what had been argued earlier. The judgment was pronounced on 20.12.2001. It was apparent from the order sheets itself that the matter remained pending before Court, so far as the contempt proceedings were concerned, for more than three years which itself was in contravention of the true spirit of the purpose of initiation of the contempt proceedings. Hence held that contempt proceedings had been concluded without ensuring the compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rules 1952. The appellants had never been informed as what were the charges against them. The relevant documents on the basis of which the High Court had taken a prima facie view while initiating the contempt proceedings suo motu, had not been made available to them. The notice itself was not only defective, but inaccurate and totally mis-leading. The facts and circumstances of the case warranted reversal of said judgment and order. Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court was set aside .Appeals were allowed.

       Result : Appeals allowed