Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(SC) 919

2012 CrLJ 636
Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM & B.S. CHAUHAN
Anup Bhushan Vohra
Versus
The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.339 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.340, 345, 346, 358, 362, 388, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399 and 400 of 2007
Decided on : 16-09-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:Mukul Rohtagi, Kalyan Bandopadhyay, R. Venkataramani, Pradip Kr. Ghosh, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advocates, Abhijit Sen Gupta, B.P. Yadav, Abhijit Bhattacharya, P.C. Sen, Aanchal Yadav, Ms. Binu Tamta, Joydeep Mazumdar, Rohit Dutta, Alto K. Joseph, Ranjan Kumar, Chiraranjan Addey, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Rupesh Kumar, Raja Chatterjee, Sachin Das, G.S. Chatterjee, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Foundation has to be laid for drawing contempt proceedings.
Unconditional, bona fide apology tendered at first opportunity ought to be accepted.

Headnote:(a) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) and 12 r/w Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975 – Law of contempt must be strictly interpreted and complied with before any person can be committed for contempt. (Para 5)
       AIR 2011 SC 1645 : (2011) 5 SCC 496 – Relied upon
       (b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) and 12 – DGP held guilty of contempt on ground that ‘orders’ of Hugh court were not complied with – Records revealing that there was only telephonic talk, that too to keep watch over the situation – No order was issued by High Court either on Administrative side or Judicial side – High Court concluding that government officials “aided and abetted” the perpetrators to agitation – Without any material – District court or High Court not requesting or seeking any help from police officials present – Returning from court entrance at the request of agitators – Proper procedure for contempt proceeding not followed – Conviction in contempt proceeding not valid. (Para 12, 20, 28, 31)
       (c) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12(1) – Unconditional bona fide apology submitted at first opportunity – Ought to be accepted. (Para 32)
       2011 (5) Scale 518 : (2011) 6 SCC 86; (2011) 7 SCC 776 – Relied upon
       AIR 1920 Bombay 175 – Cited with approval
       Facts of the case:
       A Committee was constituted by some local persons, who were active in public life, along with lawyers at Jalpaiguri named “Circuit Bench `O’ Sarbik Unnayan Dabi Adyay Samannya Committee, Jalpaiguri”. The Committee had passed a resolution for the formation of a High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and in order to achieve the said purpose to stage Satyagrah in front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri.
       In pursuance of the resolution the committee members blocked the entrance to District court and did not allow the District Judge and other Judicial Officers to enter the court.
       Despite requests from the District Judge and directions of the High Court no action was taken by Administration and the Police.
       High Court therefore suo motu initiated contempt proceedings against 16 members of the committee and the DGP and others.
       After considering the affidavits filed by the contemnors, High Court sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine within a period of one month, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
       Finding of the Court:
       Unconditional bon fide apology tendered at first opportunity ought to be accepted.
       Result:
       All appeals allowed.

Judgment :

P. Sathasivam, J.

1. These appeals, under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), are filed against the common judgment and order dated 02.03.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Suo Moto Contempt Motion being Crl.C.P.No.1 of 2007 with C.R.R. No. 187 of 2007 whereby the High Court found all the appellants guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine within a period of one month, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. Brief facts:

(a) A Committee was constituted by some local persons, who were active in public life, along with lawyers at Jalpaiguri named “Circuit Bench `O' Sarbik Unnayan Dabi Adyay Samannya Committee, Jalpaiguri” (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”). The Committee had passed a resolution for the formation of a High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and in order to achieve the said purpose to stage Satyagrah in front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. The Members of the Committee put their resolution into action on 15.12.2006 and started agitation outside the main gate of the District Court premises and put up a rostrum there on which a number of persons started sitting in Satyagrah. They prevented the Judicial Officers including the District Judge, Jalpaiguri to enter into the Court premises from that day. In order to overcome the said situation, the District Judge drew attention of such fact to the Inspector-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri for extending police help, but no action was taken. Subsequently, the District Judge brought the matter to the notice of the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta for taking necessary steps.

(b) After taking note of the situation, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. S. Sirpurkar, the then Chief Justice of the High Court, instructed the District Judge through the Registrar General to seek necessary help and protection from the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri to take immediate steps so that the Judicial Officers could enter the Court premises and attend the judicial work. The District Judge conveyed the said decision of the High Court to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri but failed to get any response from him. Subsequently, he approached the District Magistrate but no action was taken from his end also. Failing to get any response either from the Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, the District Judge sent a note to the then Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court who gave direction over phone to the Director General of Police to take effective steps without any further delay. The Director General of Police gave assurance that he would take up the matter with the Home Secretary, Government of West Bengal and also suggested the Registrar General to inform the District Judge to write to the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri to take steps for ensuring proper functioning of the Court with a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri. On 12.01.2007, the District Judge again wrote to the District Magistrate. In spite of that, no effective development had taken place and the Judicial Officers and the District Judge were unable to enter the court building.

(c) In view of the above situation, the District Judge sent a Fax message to the Registrar General of the High Court requesting him to take appropriate instructions and directions. On the basis of the said information, on 15.01.2007, the then Acting Chief Justice of the High Court sitting in a Bench issued two Suo Motu Rules of Contempt, one, against the 16 persons actively associated with the aforesaid Committee to show cause as to why they are creating impediments in functioning of the judiciary in the District Court by obstructing Judicial Officers from entering into the Court premises and the other upon the Director Gener

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 919

IMPORTANT POINTSFoundation has to be laid for drawing contempt proceedings.Unconditional, bona fide apology tendered at first opportunity ought to be accepted.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Foundation has to be laid for drawing contempt proceedings.
Unconditional, bona fide apology tendered at first opportunity ought to be accepted.