Back
1975 Supreme(MP) 95
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A.P. Sen and R.K. Tankha, JJ.
District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, Contemner
Versus
STATE OF MP
Decided On : Aug 20,1975
Headnote:(1) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – S. 12, Explanation–justification and apology–both are permissible–apology should be given at the start of the proceedings–requirements of apology.
Even though under Explanation to section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there can be both, justification and an apology, an apology so tendered must be bona fide. The Explanation to section 12 of the Act has changed the law only to that extent. Such apology, if any, must be to the satisfaction of the Court and must be made bona fide. An apology tendered must not convey the impression that when the contemner sees that the Court is going to hold him guilty he then offers the apology.
An apology to be accepted must be offered right at the start of the proceedings. The apology must be one coming from a sincere heart and not as a matter of mere formality. A belated apology loses all its value. If the apology is tendered at a late stage it is liable to be considered as an after thought and intended merely to avoid punishment. AIR 1969 SC 189 referred to.
(Para 6)
Where the contemner did not offer his apology conditional or qualified, in his affidavit in reply to the show cause notice or even at the commencement of the hearing, the Explanation to section 12 is not attracted.
(Para 13)
(2) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Ss. 4 and 5–contempt of Court–what is–obedience of orders of the Court–duty of Government officials–no effort should be made to pierce a back-door in the temple of justice.
It is indeed difficult and well-neigh impossible to frame a comprehensive and complete definition of contempt.
It is contempt of Court to publish words which tend to bring the administration of justice into contempt, to prejudice the fair trial of any case or matter which is a subject of civil or criminal proceeding or in any way obstruct the cause of justice.
(Para 7)
No officer of the Government, however high or exalted be may be, can take upon himself the responsibility of judging the correctness or validity of an order of any Court. If there is any confusion in his mind about the import of the order, the only remedy open to him is to approach that Court in accordance with law and it is not for him to take upto himself such responsibility of judging the order and take any action contrary to or inconsistent with the same on the basis of his own judgment. AIR 1969 Mad. 232 referred to.
(Para 9)
The temple of justice is wide open on the front and any party can come in and either by addressing the Court himself or by a duly appointed advocate try to influence the judgment of the Court in the manner recognised and permitted by law. But the temple of justice has no opening in its rear and any person who tries to pierce a back-door in the temple of justice is thereby trying to destroy that temple, the proper maintenance of which is necessary for all who live in an organised State. AIR 1959 Cal. 174 and AIR 1944 Lah. 196 referred to.
(Para 10)
( 1. ) THE present contempt proceedings against contemner, Arun Kshetrapal, District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, arise out of his refusal to comply with this Courts order dated 1-8-1975 in a pending habeas corpus petition and as a consequence of a crash wireless message dated 6-8-1975 addressed by him to the Registrar of this Court in that connection.
( 2. ) A detenu, Vidhya Bhushan Thakur, has challenged the validity of his detention passed by the contemner under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, in the habeas corpus petition (M. P. No. 700 of 1975) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the contemner is a party as respondent No. 1. This Court vide its order dated 1-8-1975 in that petition had directed production of the detenu in Court on 8-8-1975 which was the date of hearing. But the contemner vide his crash wireless message dated 6-8-1975 addressed to the Advocate-General and a copy to the Registrar of this Court, expressed his inability to obey the order of this Court in view of the general order issued by the State Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, excluding any person or class of persons from the operation of Section 267 of the said Code. The wireless message was brought to our notice as desired by the contemner. On 8-8-1975, we ordered issue of notice to the contemner, Arun Kshetrapal, District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (No. 70 of 1971) and fixed 13-8-1975 as the date for the appearance of the contemner.
( 3. ) ON 13-8-1975, the contemner appeared in this Court, but on a prayer being made by his counsel the hearing was adjourned for the next day, i. e. , 14-8-1975, as time was required for filing of a reply, which was submitted in the form of an affidavit together with some annexures. In reply, the contemner pleaded for discharge of the rule nisi on the grounds that neither he committed any disobedience of the order of this Court nor the tenor of the wireless message constituted contempt of this Court.
( 4. ) ON 14-8-1975, the contemner was also present in this Court but showed no remorse. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on his behalf justified his conduct by urging that that does not amount to contempt as ultimately the detenu was produced in this Court and the wireless message was only for information. It was further contended that at the most sending of wireless message to the Registrar of this Court was a mistake and the tenor of the message does not amount to contempt. Before the case could be closed for orders, learned Counsel for the contemner prayed time for the contemner to reflect on his conduct. That prayer was allowed by granting time till after lunch break. Then, at 2. 15 P. M. , the contemner. who was present in person along with Ms counsel, tendered an unqualified apology in writing which reads as under: That I have full regards and respect for this Honble Court. That I never intended to disobey any order of this Honble Court. I never intended to disregard or show disrespect to this Honble Court by any conduct on my part. That the stand taken by me was under wrong advice and I offer my unconditional and unqualified apology to this Honble Court. I further submit that any aspersions, directly or impliedly cast on this Honble Court during the address of the counsel was never meant and I offer my apology for the same. I further express my regrets and tender my unconditional and unqualified apology for filing my affidavit in reply and I seek permission to withdraw it. I offer my sincere unconditional and unqualified apology for sending wireless message dated 6-8-1975. These, in short are the facts of the case.
( 5. ) THE point arises for consideration is whether the apology so tendered by the contemn
