Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, CJI., R. Banumathi, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Sita Ram – Petitioner
Versus
Balbir @ Bali – Respondent
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of 2014 In Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2013
Decided On : 15-12-2016
(b) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Hospital keeping respondent for 527 days as indoor patient without any ailment requiring emergency treatment and without any laboratory test and without recovering a single paisa for more than 247 days – On as many as 47 occasions during his admission hospital allowing the respondent to move out of the hospital without any justification – Moreover, respondent receiving regular stream of visitors in the hospital – The hospital on more than one occasion informing the police in writing that accused Balbir Singh was fit to be taken to court but not discharging him – Held, the hospital extended protection and asylum to the respondent to defeat the Order passed by Supreme Court and thereby obstructed administration of justice – Dr. Munish Prabhakar, Medical Director of the hospital and Dr. K.S. Sachdev, Managing Director of the Company which owns and runs said hospital held guilty of contempt of Supreme Court – a (Para 19, 20, 21, 22)
(c) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 r/w Sections 2(b) and 2(c) – Civil and criminal contempt – Respondent willfully disobeying Court order being party to the proceedings and bound by the orders – Also acting in a manner obstructing administration of justice – Respondent held guilty of contempt of Supreme Court – Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev not party to the proceedings – They extended medical asylum to the respondent without there being any reason or medical condition justifying prolonged admission of the respondent as an indoor patient – Thus provided a cover to defeat the Orders passed by Supreme Court and the Trial Court, thereby aiding and assisting the respondent in violating the Order of Supreme Court – By such conduct these Medical Professionals have obstructed administration of justice – All the three persons declared contemnors – Given an opportunity on point of punishment. (Para 23, 24, 26)
(1895-99) All ER 1127; (1982) 1 All ER 556; (1991) 2 All ER 398 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, original informant in FIR No.141 dated 06.05.2011 with Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2013 assailing the Order dated 11.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granting bail to the respondent.
While setting aside the Order granting bail, Supreme Court took into account the role played by the respondent in firing upon the deceased and the fact that he was an influential person in the area with criminal antecedents. In keeping with direction to surrender to custody forthwith, it was expected of the respondent to do the needful. However, the record indicates otherwise and shows attempts to evade execution of consequential non-bailable warrants issued from time to time leading to delays in trial.
Finding of the Court:
The respondent, Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev are guilty of contempt of Supreme Court.
Result: The three contemnors given an opportunity in the matter of punishment. Police officials are already being proceeded against departmentally. The SSP discharged of notice of contempt.
JUDGMENT :
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. This petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) highlights willful and deliberate violation of the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2013 and seeks initiation of appropriate proceedings under the Act.
2. The petitioner, original informant in FIR No.141 dated 06.05.2011 with Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2013 assailing the Order dated 11.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granting bail to the respondent. While setting aside the Order granting bail, this Court in its Judgment and dated 24.10.2013 observed as under:-
“4. …………… In the FIR, the Appellant/Informant has stated that Respondent No.1 fired upon his brother-in-law Vishnu from his revolver and thereafter Sombir also fired upon Vishnu. The other persons mentioned also opened fire indiscriminately leading to firearm injuries on several persons who were at the shop of the Appellant/Informant at that fateful time. ……………………………….
5. ………………………. Respondent No.1 is indubitably a very influential person in the area, at the time of the incident he was an ex-MLA. Section 109 and Section 149, as envisaged under the IPC have been cited. By Orders dated 23.1.2013, the Addl. Sessions Judge has, on a perusal of the police report and material documents, found existence of a prima facie case under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, 307 read with Sections 149, 323 read with Section 149 IPC against all the accused and in addition to this a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC, 109 IPC and 25 of Arms Act against Balbir @ Bali, a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC against Naresh and Rishi, a prima facie case under Section 25 of Arms Act against Dinesh @ Kala and Sunil and a prima facie case under Section 27 of Arms Act.
6. Keeping all these factors in perspective, especially the wide-scale injuries suffered by several persons, there is a strong prima facie case of the involvement of the Respondent No.1 in the alleged crimes. Moreover, the antecedents of Respondent No.1 are such that a reasonably strong apprehension of his tampering with witnesses or leveling of threats is imminent and omnipresent. The severity of the attack should not be overlooked. For these manifold reasons, we set aside the impugned Order dated 11.2.2013, allow the Appeal and cancel the bail granted to Respondent No.1 who shall surrender to custody forthwith.”
3. Thus, while setting aside the Order granting bail, this Court took into account the role played by the respondent in firing upon the deceased and the fact that he was an influential person in the area with criminal antecedents. In keeping with direction to surrender to custody forthwith, it was expected of the respondent to do the needful. However, the record indicates otherwise and shows attempts to evade execution of consequential non-bailable warrants issued from time to time leading to delays in trial. The Orders passed by the Trial Court on 20.11.2013, 05.02.2014, 15.03.2014, 16.04.2014 and 14.05.2014 bear testimony in that behalf, which Orders were as under:-
20.11.2013
“Present: Shri A.S. Kadian, Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by Shri R.K. Sehgal, counsel for the complainant.
Accused Sunil and Ajay in custody, whereas all the remaining accused except accused Balwan alias Balli on bail, with Shri O.P. Chugh, Shri Surinder Verma, Advocates.
Accused Balwan absent.
Three PWs namely Sita Ram, Ram Chander and Ram Mehar are present, but their statements could not be recorded as warrant of arrest issued against accused Balwan not received back either executed or unexecuted and an application seeking exemption of accused Balwan alias Balli from personal appearance for today along with affidav
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
