Back
Judges : M.M.PAREED PILLAY,T.V.RAMAKRISHNAN
A - Appellant
Versus
K.Prakash, In Re. - Respondent
Case No : Contempt of Court Case No. 311 of 1994 (Suo Motu)
Decided On : 11/07/1994
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: ----. For the Respondent: V. V. Asokan, Counsel.
Contempt of Court - Abuse of Process - The respondent filed a second appeal after the dismissal of the first appeal against the same order, which was considered an interference with the due course of judicial proceedings and amounted to criminal contempt of Court. The respondent was sentenced with a fine of Rs. 100.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a second appeal after the dismissal of the first appeal against the same order, leading to contempt proceedings being initiated against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the filing of the second appeal was an abuse of the process of the Court and amounted to criminal contempt of Court. Despite the respondent's unconditional apology, the court imposed a fine of Rs. 100.
Issues: Contempt of Court for filing a second appeal after the dismissal of the first appeal against the same order.
Ratio Decidendi: The filing of a second appeal after the dismissal of the first appeal against the same order was considered an interference with the due course of judicial proceedings and amounted to criminal contempt of Court.
Final Decision: The respondent was sentenced with a fine of Rs. 100 for the contempt of Court.
PAREED PILLAY, Ag. C.J.
Contempt proceedings have been initiated against the respondent. He filed C.M.A. 126 of 1994 and when he did not get any relief he suppressing the fact of filing of that C.M.A. filed C.M.A. 169 of 1994. Considering that action as interference with the due course of judicial proceedings, charge was framed under S. 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. On receipt of notice, respondent filed an affidavit offering unconditional apology.
3. On a consideration of the facts leading to the framing of the charge and the contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent we are satisfied that filing of C.M.A. 169 of 1994 after the dismissal of C.M.A. 126 of 1994 against one and the same order was an abuse of the process of the Court calculated to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings of this Court and the administration of justice and amounts to criminal contempt of Court of a serious nature. As such though the respondent has tendered an unconditional apology, we are convinced that the conduct of the respondent deserves condemnation by the imposition of a sentence of fine. We would accordingly sentence the respondent with a fine of Rs. 100/- to be paid within two weeks from today.
The contempt proceedings is closed.
Order accordingly.
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
