Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GITA MITTAL & ANU MALHOTRA, JJ.
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION – Petitioner
Versus
DSP JAYANT KASHMIRI & OTHERS – Respondents
CCP (REF) No. 3 of 2016
Decided On : 09-03-2017
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(b) - Criminal contempt - Reference - There is no willful disobedience of any order of the court or any undertaking - It does not covered under the definition of civil contempt - Registration of the reference as civil contempt proceedings was clearly misconceived.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(b) - Defamation - Contempt proceedings - Whether the same was effected to interfere with the due administration of justice - Language of the contents of the publication alone would not be determinative of the issue - Surrounding facts and circumstances under which the publication or the representation was made are required to be considered - Remote possibility of the impact thereof would not invite action under the Contempt of Courts Act - Defamatory attack on a judge may be libel qua the judge and so actionable at his instance but may not be contumacious - Publication of a disparaging statement calculated to interfere with due course of justice or proper administration of law by the court would render the person liable for summary proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 15 - Contumacious - Libel - Contempt - CBI has not criticized any order of the trial judge - Reproduction of an extract of a judgment of the higher court, even if irrelevant, would not per se be treated as contumacious - Held, reference was misconceived and untenable - No proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the officials of the CBI as recommended by the reference order are warranted.
GITA MITTAL, J.
“.....We ought never to forget that the power to punish for contempt large as it is, must always be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection. Frequent or indiscriminate use of this power in anger or irritation would not help to sustain the dignity or status of the court, but may sometimes affect it adversely. Wise Judges never forget that the best way to sustain the dignity and status of their office is to deserve respect from the public at large by the quality of their judgments, the fearlessness, fairness and objectivity of their approach and by the restraint, dignity and decorum which they observe in their judicial conduct…..”
(Ref: Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures, Re.
Special Reference No. 1 of 1964
(1965) 1 SCR 413 : AIR 1965 SC 745)
1. By this judgment, we propose to decide the criminal contempt reference, made by the Special Judge-01 (CBI), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which has its genesis in the case entitled CBI v. M/s Endeavour Systems Pvt. Ltd & Others, pending before him arising out of FIR No. RC-DAI-2015-A-0042 under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” hereafter) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. During the course of investigation in the case, the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI” hereafter) seized seven accounts held by one of the companies being investigated i.e. M/s Endeavour Systems Pvt. Ltd. with the Oriental Bank of Commerce. An application dated 27th February, 2016 came to be filed seeking defreezing of seven of these bank accounts.
3. In opposition, the CBI filed a written reply dated 11th of March 2016 making a detailed factual assertion and finally summing up its submissions in para 10 of the reply (wherein it was replying to para 16 of the application). Inasmuch as one sub-para of para 10 of the CBI’s reply dated 11th March, 2016 is the basis of the reference made by the ld. Special Judge CBI which is being considered by us herein under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, we deem it appropriate to extract hereunder this portion of para 10 of the CBI reply which reads thus:
“.....It is humbly submitted that while assessing the previous order dated 20.01.2016 passed by this Court, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 10.02.2016, passed in Criminal Revision No. 251/2016 filed by CBI has held that the impugned order is full of either exceeding of jurisdiction or failure to exercise the jurisdiction. The issuance of directions to return the documents at the time of initial investigation despite having consistent stand of the CBI to retain the documents for the purpose of investigation to reach to a logical conclusion; making the unnecessary observations in para 55 with regard to conducting the proceedings by the petitioner; having contradictory views in paras 58-59 and 44; directing to return the documents in original selected by the respondent no. 1 in para 8 of the application and having failed to exercise the jurisdiction to consider the application for retention of documents by the CBI, culminates into the impugned order not sustainable in the eyes of law.”
(Emphasis by us)
4. The extract of the reply resulted in the passing of an order dated 5th April, 2016 by the ld. Special Judge objecting to the insertion of the above in the reply. In the order dated 5th April, 2016, the ld. Trial Judge has found above sub-para objectionable for reasons which can be summed up as under:
(i) The paragraph has no bearing whatsoever on the issue to be adjudicated i.e. defreezement of bank accounts of the applicant.
(ii) It contains no reasons in support of the opposition of the application which is intended.
(iii) It has been placed as warning and intended to vilify a judicial office. It is wanting altogether in fearness and justification and not only interferes in the legal process but has clear tendency to scandalize.
(iv) The paragraph contains no principle of laws; observations the
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
