Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
Bal Kishan Giri – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 OF 2010
Decided On : 28-05-2014
AIR 1991 SC 1834; AIR 1983 SC 1151; [1972] 1 All E.R. 997 – Relied upon
(b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Apology – Should be tempered with a sense of genuine remorse and repentance, and not a calculated strategy to avoid punishment – It should not be ‘paper apology’ – At the same time, an apology should not be rejected merely on the ground of being qualified or tempered at a belated stage if it is bona fide. (Para 12, 13, 18, 19)
AIR 1984 SC 1374; AIR 2006 SC 2007 – Relied upon
© Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Criminal contempt – Apology must be offered at the earliest – Court may refuse to accept if tendered merely as weapon of defence – Apology is not to be accepted as matter of course (Para 15, 16)
AIR 1969 SC 189; AIR 1972 SC 1197; AIR 1996 SC 1925; AIR 2009 SC 2214; (2010) 11 SCC 493; AIR 1974 SC 710; AIR 1976 SC 242; AIR 1983 SC 1151; AIR 1992 SC 642; (1995) 3 SCC 619; AIR 2008 SC 3016; AIR 2011 SC 2275 – Relied upon
(d) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Power to punish for contempt – Should be exercised with great and caution – Only when “silence is no longer an option.” (Para 17)
AIR 1978 SC 727; AIR 2012 SC 490; (2012) 1 SCC 273; (2013) 10 SCC 658; (2013) 14 SCC 127 – Relied upon
(e) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12(1) and (2) – Court can punish by simple imprisonment for a term extending to six months or fine up to 2000/- – Sentence cannot exceed that provided in section 12(1) – High Court imposing fine of 20000/- – Reduced to 2000/-. (Para 20, 21)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2010
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – In view of the judgment passed in connected Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2010 – Appeal dismissed – Fine of Rs.20,000/- imposed by High Court reduced to Rs.2,000/-. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
An Anil Kumar, had filed FIR alleging that his younger brother Sunil Kumar along with Puneet Kumar Giri, who were residing in Sitaram Hostel of the Meerut College, were not traceable and went missing since the previous evening. Another inmate of the same hostel Sudhir Kumar was also reported untraceable. The very next day, three dead bodies of the said missing persons were found on the banks of river Hindon.
During investigation, many accused persons including one Haji Izlal were arrested.
During pendency of the bail applications of the accused before High Court the appellant submitted an application to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court alleging that the accused therein were gangsters and had accumulated assets worth crores of rupees by their criminal activities. The accused persons were closely related to a local M.L.A. and Ex. M.P. and they had links with the Judges of the High Court including Mr. Justice S.K. Jain who had earlier served as a judicial officer in Meerut Court. The appellant expressed his apprehension that Mr. Justice S.K. Jain would favour the accused persons to get bail. A copy of the said complaint was also sent to the Chairman, Bar Council of U.P.
The High Court issued a show cause notice to the appellant as to why the criminal contempt proceedings be not initiated against him under the provisions of the Act.
The appellant submitted an unconditional apology submitting that the application was sent by him as he had been misguided by the advocates of District Meerut and he was in great mental tension as his nephew had been murdered.
The High Court after completing the trial convicted and sentenced the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in conviction. However the fine is excessive.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
The appellant, who is a practicing advocate, made serious and scandalous remarks against sitting judges of the High Court, which were sufficient to undermine the majesty of law and the dignity of the court. These remarks were made without any basis, and the appellant's defense of being misguided was not accepted (!) .
An unconditional apology was tendered by the appellant, but the court did not accept it as genuine. The court emphasized that an apology must be sincere, tempered with remorse and repentance, and not a calculated strategy to avoid punishment. The court also highlighted that apologies should be offered at the earliest opportunity and should come from genuine contrition [Para 12, 13, 18, 19] (!) (!) .
The court noted that the power to punish for contempt should be exercised with great caution and only when silence is no longer an option. The misconduct involved insubordination and disparagement of judicial officers, which shakes public confidence in the judiciary [Para 17] (!) .
The appellant's apology was found to be not bona fide, and the court rejected it because it lacked sincerity and remorse. The act of making such derogatory remarks by a member of the Bar was considered highly reprehensible and damaging to the judicial system (!) (!) .
The court reduced the fine imposed by the High Court from a substantial amount to a nominal sum, considering the circumstances. The appellant was also directed to surrender and serve the sentence unless he was taken into custody to serve it (!) (!) .
Overall, the court emphasized that contempt of court must be dealt with firmly, and apologies are not to be accepted as a matter of course if they are insincere or merely strategic. The integrity and dignity of the judiciary are paramount, and misconduct by members of the Bar that undermines this must be addressed with due caution and seriousness [Para 33] (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan,J.
1. In this appeal, impugned judgment and order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Contempt Application (Crl.) No. 15 of 2009, by which the appellant stood convicted for committing criminal contempt under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks, has been assailed.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. An FIR was lodged in P.S. Baleni, District Baghpat on 23.5.2008 by Anil Kumar, appellant in connected Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2010 alleging that his younger brother Sunil Kumar alongwith Puneet Kumar Giri, who were residing in Sitaram Hostel of the Meerut College, were not traceable and went missing the previous evening. Another inmate of the same hostel Sudhir Kumar was also reported untraceable. The very next day, three dead bodies of the said missing persons were found on the banks of river Hindon. A criminal case was therefore registered.
B. During investigation, it came to the notice of the police authorities that the place of occurrence fell within the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Kotwali, Meerut, and thus investigation on being transferred to P.S. Kotwali, Meerut, the case was registered as Case Crime No.190/2008.
C. During investigation, many accused persons including one Haji Izlal were arrested. They moved bail applications before the Meerut Distt. Court which stood rejected. Aggrieved, all the accused persons filed bail applications before the High Court of Allahabad. It was on 14.8.2009 during the pendency of the said applications that the appellant submitted an application to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court alleging that the accused therein were gangsters and had accumulated assets worth crores of rupees by their criminal activities. The accused persons were closely related to a local M.L.A. and Ex. M.P. and they had links with the Judges of the High Court including Mr. Justice S.K. Jain who had earlier served as a judicial officer in Meerut Court. The appellant expressed his apprehension that Mr. Justice S.K. Jain would favour the accused persons to get bail. A copy of the said complaint was also sent to the Chairman, Bar Council of U.P.
D. The High Court examined the complaint and placed the matter on the judicial side on 12.11.2009. The court issued a show cause notice dated 14.8.2009 to the appellant as to why the criminal contempt proceedings be not initiated against him under the provisions of the Act.
E. The appellant submitted an unconditional apology dated 21.11.2009 submitting that the application was sent by him as he had been misguided by the advocates of District Meerut and he was in great mental tension as his nephew had been murdered.
F. The High Court after completing the trial convicted the appellant vide impugned judgment and order dated 5.2.2010 and awarded the sentence as referred to hereinabove.
Hence, this appeal.
3. Mr. J.M. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the show cause notice was not in consonance with the provisions of Chapter XXXV-E, Rule 6 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Thus, all subsequent proceedings stood vitiated. More so, the appellant is a practicing advocate and had written the said complaint under a mental tension as his nephew had been murdered, and on being misguided by the advocates of the Meerut Court. Once the appellant has tendered an absolute and unconditional apology, punishment was not warranted and fine imposed therein is contrary to the statutory provisions of the Act. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
4. Per contra, Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the appeal contending that very wild and scandalous allegations had been made by the app
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
