Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
Desai A.A. Manoharan L., JJ.
Arun Kumar Krishnarao Balpande .… Petitioner.
Versus
Wasudeorao Kondbaji Ganar others .… Respondents.
Criminal Contempt Petition No. 6 of 1994, decided on 13-10-1995.
Advocates appeared :
Uday Dastane, for petitioner.
S.G. Aney, M.M. Agnihotri S. Sanyal, for respondent No. 1.
H. Ahmed, A.P.P., for respondent No. 2.
S.P. Dhole, for respondents Nos. 3 4.
B.A. Udhoji with Ms. S.M. Mudaliyar S. M. Muley, for respondent Nos. 5, 6 7.
C.S. Kaptan, for respondent Nos. 8, 9 12.
Ramesh Darda, for respondent Nos. 10 11.
M.G. Bhangade V.V. Bhangade, for respondent Nos. 13 14.
S.R. Deshpande appeared amicus curiae.
The Supreme Court and the High Court being Courts of Record as embodied under Articles 129 and 215, respectively, the Constitutionally vested right cannot be either abridged by any legislation or abrogated or cut down. Nor can they be controlled or limited by any statute or by any provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any Rules.
When the Court is at the question as to whether it should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 215 suo motu it cannot be successfully maintained that the same has to be subjected to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
. Section 2-Constitutiun of India, Article 215-Scope of.
The Supreme Court and the High Court being Courts of Record as embodied under Articles 129 and 215, respectively, the constitutionally vested right cannot be either abridged by any legislation or abrogated or cut down. Nor can they be controlled of limited by any statute or by any provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any Rules.
When the Court is at the question as to whether it should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 215 suo motu it cannot be successfully maintained that the same has to be subjected to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. The facts as could be ascertained from the petition are that on 28-3-1994, dead body of Smt. Manorama Kamble was found in the house of one Shri Sham Dewani, a practising Advocate. It was first reported to be an accidental death by the said Shri Sham Dewani. The complainant said that Manorama Kamble had died of electrocution. On post mortem of the dead body, it was discovered that she died of strangulation by throttling and that she was raped. Therefore, Jaripatka Police Station registered an offence punishable under sections 302, 376, 201 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case, though was initially registered against unknown persons, later accused were identified as Sham Dewani, his father and brothers. Incidentally it is necessary to note that the said Manorama Kamble was a maid-servant in the house of Sham Dewani.
3. The first respondent who is an office bearer of the Republican Party of India, had issued press statements and also conducted press conferences which, according to the petitioner, was designed to scandalise and lower the authority of this Court as well as the Courts subordinate to it and the same was also to prejudice and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings. In paragraph-3 of the petition, the petitioner makes reference to various acts which, according to him, would amount to criminal contempt of this Court. It further states:
“…..More particularly respondent No. 1 held a press conference on 23-4-1994 in which he made various statements as under -
(a) Shri Damle, learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur, granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons for facilitating destruction of evidence after the post mortem report revealed that late Manorama was raped and murdered;
(b) On the day of Holi, there was a wet party at the house of Advocate Dewani in which 4 Sessions Judges were present and although the police know their names, they have not been arrested;
(c) There was no hope that the family of late Manorama Kamble would get justice at the hands of the District and Sessions Court, Nagpur; and
(d) He named 3 Judges of this Hon'ble Court before whom the trial should be held, clearly implying that in so far as the rest of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court are concerned, he had no faith.”
It is further alleged that these statements were widely published in the newspapers of 24-3-1994 which are collectively marked as Annexure-I to this petition. Respondents Nos. 3 to 14 are responsible for such publication.
According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 issued public statement- Annexure-II dated 27-4-1994 to the effect that there was a party on 27-3-1994 at the residence of Sham Dewani where certain Judges were present, According to the petitioner, not only the first respondent by issuing such statements but also respondents Nos. 3 to 14 who published the said news items have committed contempt of Court, as according to him, by publication of the same, respondent No. 1 and 3 to 14 have scandalized the Courts so as to lower its authority. It is on the basis of the said allegations mainly the petitioner seeks this Court's indulgence to take suo motu cognizance of the criminal contempt against the respondent No. 1 and 3 to 14 and to punish them for the commission of the said criminal contempt.
4. Respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra, which was impleaded as required under Rule 4(b) of the Rules framed by the Appellate Side of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Respondents 3 to 14 were later impleaded and paragraphs 5-A and 5-B were added as per Order dated 14-9-1994. Notice before admission was issued on 7-3-1995. Even
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
