Back
1996(4) Supreme 55
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.P. Singh & S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
State of Maharashtra -Appellant
versus
Mahboob S. Allibhoy & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1992
Decided on 10-4-1996
(ii) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 19-Appeal against Order of High Court dropping contempt proceedings-High Court passed order directing that complaint be lodged against respondents and thought it proper not to pursue proceedings for contempt-Order could not be said requiring interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution. (Para 7)
Key Points: - The appealability of an order dropping contempt proceedings under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act is discussed; the Court holds that no appeal is maintainable in such a case. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Section 19(2) provides reliefs that can be granted pending an appeal, such as suspending execution, releasing on bail, or hearing the appeal notwithstanding non-purging of contempt. (!) (!) (!) (!) - If no appeal under Section 19(1) is maintainable, the aggrieved person may seek relief under Article 136 of the Constitution to obtain appropriate redress. (!) (!) - The proceedings of contempt are primarily between the court and the alleged contemnor; the informer is not a prosecutor, and the court decides punishment. (!) - The High Court’s power to punish for contempt derives from Article 215 of the Constitution. (!) - The decision to drop contempt proceedings and not to initiate them can be a decision not to exercise jurisdiction to punish, and such decisions may not attract a right of appeal under Section 19(1). (!) - The appellate court cannot interfere under Article 136 unless it is satisfied it is a fit case to intrude in the larger administration of justice. (!) - The appeal in the referenced case was dismissed; no costs. (!)
ORDER
This appeal has been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra for setting aside an order dated 12th July, 1988 passed by the High Court of Bombay dropping the contempt proceeding which had been initiated against the respondents.
2. It appears that respondents had filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming refund of Rs. 2,60,144-70 paid as counter-vailing/additional duty. The Customs department filed an affidavit stating that a false claim had been made before the Court for obtaining refund because in fact the writ petitioners - respondents had not paid any duty at all and had claimed the refund on basis of forged documents. In connection with the said dispute, a notice was issued to the respondents as to why a complaint be not filed against them under Sections 191, 192, 209 and 210 of the Indian Penal Code. A notice was also issued to the respondents directing them to show cause why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them. After taking into consideration the show cause filed on behalf of the respondents an order was passed directing that a complaint be filed against them. The learned Judges having passed the aforesaid order directed that no action be taken under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This part of the order is being challenged in this appeal. According to the appellant-State in the facts and circumstances of the present case the contempt proceeding should not have been dropped.
3. The preliminary question which has to be examined as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case an appeal is maintainable against an order dropping the proceeding for contempt. It is well settled that an appeal is a creature of a statute. Unless a statute provides for an appeal and specifies the order against which an appeal can be filed, no appeal can be filed or entertained as a matter of right or course. Section 19 of the Act says :
"Appeals-(1) an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt-
(a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court:
Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that-
(a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended;
(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and
(c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt.
(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2).
(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed-
(a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days;
(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against."
On a plain reading Section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In other words, if the High Court passes an order in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish any person for contempt of court, them only an appeal shall be maintainable under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. As sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order, an impression is created that an appeal has been provided under the said sub-section against any order passed by the High Court while exercising the jurisdiction of contempt proceedings. The words any order ha
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
