The main legal point established in the judgment is the nature of contempt alleged and the jurisdiction of the learned single Judge to entertain the apology of the contemnor in a case cognizable under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is an offshoot of the proceedings of ex-facie contempt drawn against the appellant in Contempt Application No. 21 of 2007. The order questioned in this Appeal is dated 23. 10. 2008, passed by the learned single Judge on a miscellaneous application filed in Contempt Case No. 21 of 2007, whereby the learned single Judge has directed that the application moved by the appellant, tendering apology, should be placed before this Full Bench for its consideration. The Appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned single Judge has not appreciated the observations of the Full Bench in the order dated 13. 10. 2008 which is to the effect that the contempt is one under Section 14 and not under Section 15 of the Act; and secondly, the learned single Judge could not have reiterated his view taken earlier in the order dated 11. 12. 2007 relying on the order of the Division Bench of the same date.

( 2 ) THE appeal was taken up by the Division Bench on 1. 12. 2008; on which date, the matter was heard and the following order was passed:-

"heard Sri Sant Sharan Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Standing Counsel, who is present for the respondents, has stated that he has not to make any submission in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant prays that the appeal be finally decided, which has been filed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 23rd October, 2008. The submissions have been made basically on two grounds firstly with regard to the maintainability of the appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and secondly that the order dated 23rd October, 2008 passed by learned single Judge in essence is an order refusing to exercise jurisdiction, which is vested in the learned single Judge while proceeding with contempt proceedings under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgments of the Apex Court on which reliance is being placed shall be submitted by tomorrow. The appeal is admitted and heard finally. Put up on 8th December, 2008 for orders. "

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, a detail order has been delivered on 8. 12. 2008 holding that the appeal is maintainable. It raises a question of jurisdiction pertaining to the acceptance of apology or otherwise by the learned single Judge and further that the question as to whether the contempt is one of Section 14 or Section 15 is yet to be considered by the Full Bench which question should be decided by the Full Bench itself. Accordingly, the Honble Senior Judge was pleased to pass an order directing this appeal to be placed for disposal before us.

( 4 ) THE matter was heard by us along with the Contempt Application No. 21 of 2007. The aforesaid issue was advanced and after having considered the observations made in the order of the Full Bench dated 22. 8. 2008 in Contempt Appeal No. 25 of 2007 which stands reported in 2008 (7) ADJ 336, Smt. Sadhna Upadhyaya Vs. State, it was concluded by us that the nature of the contempt alleged against the appellant is one which was in facie curiae and was, therefore, an ex-facie contempt cognizable under Section 14. The aforesaid conclusion was drawn on the basis of the recital contained in the order of the learned single Judge dated 10. 12. 2007 where the appellant is alleged to have wilfully and deliberately obstructed the proceedings of the Court and had also simultaneously cast aspersions on the court, that were stated to be clearly calculated to undermine the authority of the Court and to put it in disrepute. This would be evident from a perusal of the order dated 10. 12. 2007 passed by the learned single Judge drawing the proceedings for contempt.

( 5 ) WE have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the recital contained in the order dated 10. 12. 2007 clearly reflects and exhibits an incident of ex-facie contempt which was in the direct perception of the Judge presiding over the Court and was an act committed during court hours. Whi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document