Back
2011 (3) Supreme 217
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Muthu Karuppan — Appellant(s)
versus
Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & Anr. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 2004
Decided on : 15-4-2011
(b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 15 r/w rules 4 and 8, Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules, 1975 – Prescribed procedure for initiating contempt proceedings must be followed – Requirement of prior consent of Advocate General is mandatory – Consent subsequently obtained will not cure the defect. (Paras 10 and 11)
2010 (12) Scale 556; (2001) 8 SCC 82; AIR 2005 SC 396 – Relied upon
(c) Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules, 1975 – Rule 3(c) – However if the issue involved in the proceedings had greater impact on the administration of justice and on the justice delivery system, the court is competent to go into the contempt proceedings even without the consent of the Advocate General. (Para 14)
(2010) 7 SCC 592 – Relied upon
(d) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) – No one can compel or demand initiation of contempt proceedings as of right – The person filing an application or petition before the court does not become a complainant or petitioner in the proceedings – He is just an informer or relator – It is for the court to act on such information or not. (Para 23)
(2000) 3 SCC 171 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This criminal appeal questions the sentence passed by the High Court at Madras under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Finding of the Court:
There being no specific material involving the appellant in filing of false affidavit, the sentence imposed by the High Court cannot be sustained.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J. —
1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 397 of 2001 whereby the High Court held the respondents therein guilty of the offence punishable under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days under Section 12 of the Act.
2) Brief Facts:
(a) Parithi Ilamvazhuthi-Respondent No. 1 herein was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly (in short ‘MLA’) of the Egmore Constituency, Chennai in the Elections held on 10.05.2001 to the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly. Large scale violence and several attempts of booth capturing were reported on the day of election. In respect of the same, Crime No. 958 of 2001 was registered against his opposite party candidate John Pandian and others for various offences. Similarly, Crime No. 960 of 2001 was registered against Respondent No. 1 by one David for various offences. John Pandian was arrested on 10.05.2001 and remanded to judicial custody. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for anticipatory bail being Crl. M.P. No. 6244 of 2001 before the Sessions Court, Chennai and the same was dismissed on 16.05.2001 stating that the investigation is at an early stage and enlargement would hamper the investigation.
(b) On 17.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. On the same day, Muthu Karuppan-the appellant herein was appointed as Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City and assumed charge. On 21.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 moved an application for bail being Crl. M.P. No. 1379 of 2001 before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate which was dismissed on the same day. On 22.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 moved an application for bail being Crl. M.P. No. 6277 of 2001 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai mainly on the ground that he has to attend the Assembly which has commenced on 22.05.2001 to take oath as MLA. On 23.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 was granted conditional bail by the Sessions Judge.
(c) On 24.05.2001, Rajendra Kumar, Inspector of Police, (L&O), Tamil Nadu-Respondent No. 2 herein, filed an application for cancellation of bail being Crl. O.P. No. 9352 of 2001 before the High Court of Madras and sought for stay of bail granted to Respondent No. 1 herein. On the same day, learned single Judge of the High Court stayed the order of grant of bail and ordered notice to Respondent No. 1 on the ground that the victim, namely, David is in a serious condition and the accused is in police custody. On 28.05.2001, on receipt of the said notice, Respondent No. 1 filed a counter affidavit submitting that the statement of Respondent No. 2 regarding police custody is false. On 29.05.2001, Respondent No. 2 filed his reply affidavit admitting that it was a mistake by oversight and the same is neither willful nor wanton.
(d) On 30.05.2001, the petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed by the High Court holding that no ground was made out for cancellation of the bail. After the order dated 30.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 filed Contempt Application No. 397 of 2001 before the High Court stating that on the direction, supervision and knowledge of the appellant herein, Respondent No. 2 moved an application to cancel the bail granted to him on the basis of false statement thereby prevented him from attending the Assembly.
(e) On 29.10.2004, the Division Bench of the High Court held the respondents therein guilty of the offence punishable under Section 2(c) of the Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days under Section 12 of the Act.
(f) Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, appellant herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 2004 before this Court and on 13.12.2004, this Court admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the impugned order insofar as it relates to the appellant. Respondent No. 2 also fil
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
