Point of Law: Doubt nurtured must not be fanciful doubt or lingering suspicion but must be doubt based on reason and commonsense it is true to say with Vis count Simon, that a "miscarriage of justice may arise from acquittal of guilty no less than from conviction of innocent.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal was preferred under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 before the Division Bench to set aside the order dated 21.10.2021, finding appellant guilty for contempt of C.C.No.722 of 2021.

2. Learned single Judge held as follows:

“4. In the circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondent has committed a clear and unequivocal violation of the orders of this Court amounting to deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court. Accordingly, the respondent has committed contempt of the orders of this Court.

5. In view of this clear contempt, the respondent is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of four weeks and a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) payable within two weeks from the date of this order. Failing which, the respondent shall be liable for further simple imprisonment of two weeks.

6. This order is suspended for a period of four weeks to enable the respondent to file an appeal against this order if he so chooses."

3. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant herein preferred the appeal raising several contentions.

4. Upon hearing argument of both the counsel, the presiding brother Judge (Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) of the Division Bench agreed with the findings recorded by the learned single Judge modified the impugned order and sentenced the contemnor to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- while reducing the sentence of imprisonment from four (4) weeks to one (1) week. Whereas, other brother Judge (Justice B.Krishna Mohan) after elaborate consideration of law laid down by various Courts, mostly the Apex Court, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant and exonerated him from contempt case accepting the unconditional apology for the delay in implementation of the order.

5. In view of conflicting opinions expressed by both the Judges in the Division Bench, this reference is made by the Division Bench in term of Clause 36 of the Letters Patent, formulated a question for reference to the third Judge as follows:

“Whether the appeal deserves disposal by reducing the term to one week’s imprisonment and increasing the fine to Rs.10,000/- in terms of the judgement by Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J; or whether the appeal is to be allowed as per the judgment by B. Krishna Mohan, J?”

6. In view of the specific question formulated by the Division Bench, it is necessary to examine the scope of reference with reference to Clause 36 of the Letters Patent, Section 98 Clause (2) of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “C.P.C.”) and rules framed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

7. A bare look at the order dated 28.02.2022, it is clear that the Division Bench of the High Court based on Clause 36 of Letters Patent directed the Registry to make reference to third Judge.

8. Section 98 of the C.P.C. deals with procedure for hearing appeal by two or more judges. Section 98 of C.P.C. reads as follows:

“(1) Where an appeal is heard by a Bench of two or more Judges, the appeal shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of such Judges or of the majority (if any) of such Judges.

(2) Where there is no such majority which concurs in a judgment varying or reversing the decree appealed from, such decree shall be confirmed :

Provided that where the Bench hearing the appeal is 1[composed of two or other even number of Judges belonging to a Court consisting of more Judges than those constituting the Bench] and the Judges composing the Bench differ in opinion on a point of law, they may state the point of law upon which they differ and the appeal shall then be heard upon that point only by one or more of the other Judges, and such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority (if any) of the Judges who have heard the appeal including those who first heard it.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to alter or otherwise affect any provision of the letters patent of any High Court.”

9. Section 98 of C.P.C. is applicable only when the a