Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
N. G. CHAUDHURI, S. N. SANYAL, JJ.
SM. MANISHA MUKHERJEE
VERSUS
ASOKE CHATTERJEE
Criminal Misc. Case No.11 of 1982,
Decided On : 20 -9 -1984
CONTEMPT OF COURT - CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - PROCEDURE - SECTIONS 14 AND 15 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - APPLICABILITY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONTEMPT COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OR HEARING OF THE COURT AND CONTEMPT COMMITTED ELSEWHERE - EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 14 FOR CONTEMPT COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OR HEARING OF THE COURT - PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 15 AVAILABLE FOR CONTEMPT COMMITTED ELSEWHERE - CONDUCT OF CONTEMPTOR ON 17-9-1981 IN THE COURTROOM AMOUNTED TO CONTEMPT BUT COULD NOT BE DEALT WITH UNDER SECTION 14 SINCE IT WAS NOT COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE PRESENCE OR HEARING OF THE COURT - PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 15 NOT AVAILABLE SINCE IT EXCLUDES CONTEMPT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 14 - PETITION DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint against the opposite party under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1975. The opposite party was convicted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in 1979. He filed an appeal against his conviction in the City Sessions Court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. The petitioner filed an appeal against the appellate order of acquittal in the High Court. The appeal was admitted and assigned to different Benches, but could not be heard due to various reasons, including adjournments obtained by the opposite party's advocate. The appeal was ultimately assigned to a Bench consisting of Justice S.M. Guha and Justice N.G. Chaudhuri. On 14-8-1981, the Bench adjourned the appeal to 4-9-1981 for fixing a date of hearing. On 4-9-1981, the Bench fixed 16, 17, and 18 September 1981 for hearing the appeal. On 17-9-1981, the opposite party's advocate informed the Bench that his client had no confidence in the Bench. The Bench asked the opposite party why he had no confidence, but he remained silent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the conduct of the opposite party on 17-9-1981 in the courtroom amounted to contempt, as it was intended to scandalize the Court and lower its authority, and also interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings. However, the Court held that the contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were not maintainable in this case, as the contempt was committed in the presence or hearing of the Court, and the exclusive procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the Act was not followed.
Issues: 1. Whether the conduct of the opposite party on 17-9-1981 in the courtroom amounted to contempt of court? 2. Whether the contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were maintainable in this case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines criminal contempt as any act that scandalizes or lowers the authority of a court, prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice. The Court found that the opposite party's statement that he had no confidence in the Bench, without disclosing any reason or material in support thereof, amounted to contempt, as it was intended to scandalize the Court and lower its authority, and also interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings. 2. The Court held that the contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were not maintainable in this case, as the contempt was committed in the presence or hearing of the Court, and the exclusive procedure prescribed under Section 14 of the Act was not followed. The Court noted that Section 14 provides a summary procedure for dealing with contempt committed in the presence or hearing of the Court, while Section 15 provides a more detailed procedure for dealing with contempt committed elsewhere. The Court found that the opposite party's conduct on 17-9-1981 was not committed in the immediate presence or hearing of the Court, and therefore, the summary procedure under Section 14 could not be applied. The Court also found that the procedure under Section 15 was not available, as it expressly excludes contempt referred to in Section 14.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
N. G. Chaudhuri, J. :- This is a petition complaining of contempt of Court. It has been filed with the consent of the Advocate-General given under S.15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner alleges that the statement the contemnor-opposite party made before a Division Bench of this Court in connection with the hearing of Criminal Appeal No.382 of 1979 on 17-9-1981 to the effect that he had no confidence in the Bench constituted by the Judges named without disclosing any reason or material in support thereof amounted to contempt inasmuch as it scandalised or lowered the authority of the Court, interfered with the course of judicial proceedings or obstructed the administration of justice. In the appeal aforesaid the petitioner was appellant and the opposite party was respondent.
2. For proper appreciation of the charge of contempt of Court brought by the petitioner it is necessary to give the antecedent facts in some details. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against the opposite party in 1975 under S.493 of the I.P.C. On 2-4-79 the opposite party was convicted by the learned Magistrate trying the case. The petitioner has given in details in her petition various steps taken by the opposite party in the said proceeding with a view, solely to delay the proceeding. The steps included moving revision petitions against orders passed by the learned Magistrate at various stages of the proceedings and obtaining adjournments. Opposite party filed appeal against the order of his conviction in the City Sessions Court, Calcutta. The Chief Judge, City Sessions Court after hearing the learned Advocates of the parties allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The petitioner filed an appeal against the appellate order of acquittal in the High Court which was admitted as Criminal Appeal No.388 of 1979. The appeal coming up in the list of Mr. Justice Borooah and Mr. Justice B.N. Maitra could not be heard because of repeated adjournments obtained by Mr. S.D. Banerjee, the learned advocate for the opposite party. The appeal later appeared in the list of the Bench consisting Mr. Justice N.C. Mukherjee and Mr. Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, but the appeal was not fixed for hearing before the Bench because Mr. Justice Monoj Kumar Mukherjee in his capacity as advocate had taken up the brief of the petitioner at one stage. The appeal was assigned to the Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sen. After a few months the said Bench ordered the appeal to go out of their list on account of their preoccuption with civil matters. The appeal was assigned to the criminal Bench presided over by Mr. Justice N.C. Mukherjee and Mr. Justice N.G. Chaudhuri. For some reasons Mr. Justice N.C. Mukherji declined to hear the appeal. The appeal was assigned to the Bench presided over by Mr. Justice B.N. Maitra and Mr. Justice Amitabha Dutta. Mr. Justice Maitra for some reasons declined to hear the appeal. The appeal was assigned to a Bench constituted by Mr. Justice S.M. Guha and Mr. Justice Amitabha Dutta, but Mr. Justice Dutta did not like to hear the appeal for some reasons. The appeal was ultimately assigned to the Bench constituted by Mr. Justice S.M. Guha and Mr. Justice N.G. Chaudhuri. Because of throat trouble of Mr. S.D. Banerjee, the learned advocate for the opposite party, the said Bench adjourned the appeal on 14-8-1981 to 4-9-1981 for fixing a date of hearing.
3. On 4-9-81 overruling the suggestion put forward by the learned advocate for the opposite party that the date of hearing be fixed sometime after the Puja vacation, the Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Guha and Mr. Justice Chaudhuri fixed 16, 17 and 18th Sept. 1981 for hearing of the appeal. The reasons for rejecting the suggestion of the learned advocate for the opposite party regarding the date was the possibility of Mr. Justice Guha being involved in certain matters res
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
