The judgment establishes that a civil prisoner, found guilty of contempt and punished with civil imprisonment, is eligible for remission under the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, despite the absence of a specific provision for remission for civil prisoners.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.(Oral)

EX.APPL. (OS) 747/2023 (Under Order XXI by Judgment Debtor)

1. By way of present application filed under Section 151 CPC read with Order 21 CPC, the applicant/Contemnor - Arun Rathi has prayed that his case be considered for grant of remission in accordance with Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.

2. Briefly, this Court vide order dated 24.05.2019, while noting the facts of the case and especially the conduct of the applicant, found him guilty of contempt of Court for violating orders as well as the undertaking given before the learned Arbitrator. The Court directed the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs.5.05 crores i.e., the value of the machinery and equipment which had gone missing, to the Decree Holder. It was further directed that if the said amount was not paid within six weeks, the applicant would be liable to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of three months.

The said order was challenged before the Division Bench by way of CONT.APP. (C)15/2019. The challenge came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2019 against which an S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 665 of 2020 was preferred, which was also dismissed however, time to deposit the amount was extended vide orders dated 11.11.2022 and 15.12.2022. Thereafter, a Review Petition No.12/2023 filed before the Division Bench also came to be dismissed on 13.01.2023.

The Court, on 29.03.2023, while noting that the applicant had failed to deposit the amount of Rs.5.05 crores, directed him to surrender and undergo three months civil imprisonment in terms of the order dated 25.05.2019. Reportedly, the applicant surrendered on 10.04.2023 and has been in civil prison since then.

3. Pertinently, during the pendency of the present application, a representation made by the applicant before the Jail Authorities came to be rejected on 01.07.2023.

4. Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant having been found guilty of contempt and punished with civil imprisonment is entitled for grant of remission. He challenged the very basis of communication dated 01.07.2023 which is an illegal and arbitrary exercise of power by the jail authorities.

5. Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC (Criminal), on the other hand, has disputed the applicant's submissions. She contended that the applicant being a civil prisoner is not entitled for any remission as the punishment awarded to the applicant is not a substantive sentence. She further contended that the Rules do not provide for any remission under the heading of Civil Prison in Chapter XXXIII.

6. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 24.05.2019 was passed in a petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter, referred to as the `Act'). The proceedings under the Act for civil contempt culminate in punishing the contemnor for non-compliance and disobedience of the order of Court. The proceedings are unlike execution proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure, as in the contempt proceedings the Court is mandatorily required to satisfy it and record a finding that the disobedience was willful and intentional.

Sub-Section 1 of Section 12 of the Act provides that a contempt of Court may be punished with a simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. Sub-Section 3 which starts with a non-obstante clause provides that where a person is found guilty of civil contempt and if the Court considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and a sentence of imprisonment is necessary, instead of sentencing into simple imprisonment, direct that he will detain in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months. Not only the proceedings under the Act are quasi-criminal in nature, but also the orders passed are to be treated as orders passed in criminal cases. [Ref: Andre Paul Terence Ambard v. The Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago, reported as AIR 1936 PC 141; Sahdeo v. State of U.P.,