2004 Supreme(Bom) 1108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Khandeparkar R.M.S. Mohite R.S., JJ.
Kapol Co-operative Bank Ltd..... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others ..... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 725 of 2004, decided on 5-8-2004.
Advocates appeared :
I.S. Thakur, A.P.P., for respondent-State.
A.V. Anturkar, for Contemner.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) - Contempt of Court. - Filing of false affidavit or making a false statement of fact on oath in a judicial proceedings amounts to contempt of Court. - Undoubtedly, filing of false affidavit or making a false statement of fact on oath in a judicial proceeding would amount to interference in due course of such judicial proceedings and therefore it would fall under Section 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act. But at the same time it should not be forgotten that any such act which causes or tends to cause prejudice to the cause of the opposite party or the litigant or results in delaying of dispensation of justice to such other party or litigant would certainly be an interference in the administration of justice and in that sense the contemptuous act could fall under both the provisions, namely Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii). When the facts stated themselves are false, nothing further is required to warrant contempt proceedings against the person who makes such false statements.

       Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 14 - Criminal contempt of Court. - Intention is not an essential ingredients for commission of offence of Criminal Contempt of Court. - The law is well-settled that the intention is not an essential ingredient for commission of offence of criminal contempt of Court. However, when the acts complained of also disclose any such intention, certainly that would result in aggravating the offence and the same will have to be necessarily considered at the time of imposing the sentence.

       Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 14 and 12(1), Proviso - Constitution of India, Article 215 - Apology for condoning act of contempt. - Apology for condoning act of contempt, not only to be unconditional but should disclose real contriteness of wrong done. - Where the contemner respondent No. 6, Senior Inspector of Police, Cuffe Parade Police Station, Mumbai, tendered apology for committing contempt of Court under Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

       Held, that bare reading of the so-called unconditional apology would disclose that the same was not in relation to the commission of contempt of Court but essentially for not being careful in giving proper facts and instructions to the A.G.P. and therefore having committed a grave mistake in being careless on his part. It is well-settled that the apology which may be accepted for condoning the act of contempt has not only to be unconditional but should disclose real contriteness, the consciousness of the wrong done as well as of the injury inflicted coupled with the sincere and earnest desire to make such reparation as lies in the contemner’s power. The apology can never be used as a weapon of defence to purge the guilt of offence and it can never be intended to operate as a panacea. The apology coupled with a justification for the statements made in the affidavits or the denial of the intention to mislead the Court by making false statement, cannot be said to be an unconditional apology. Such an apology can only be termed as a mere realisation of the contemner that his adventure has turned into a misadventure inasmuch as he failed in misleading the Court to get the petition dismissed on the basis of the statement which was false to the knowledge of the contemner. The contemner had clearly denied that the was guilty of any act amounting to contempt of Court. In such circumstances, the contemner can hardly claim any benefit of the so-called unconditional apology. Apology rejected.