Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2010 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 1261 - SUPREME COURTOrder of the HC passed in Criminal Contempt - High Court power to initiate the contempt proceedings suo motu for ensuring the compliance of the orders passed by the Court - convicting the appellants for not complying with the directions issued by this Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal [1996 (12) TMI 350 - SUPREME COURT] and sentencing them for six months' imprisonment and also imposing a fine - HELD THAT:- In the instant cases, the record reveals that the Habeas Corpus petition was taken by the High Court on 30.07.1997 and directed the District Judge to hold the inquiry on the allegations made in the Habeas Corpus petition. The District Judge submitted the report on 03.12.1997. The Court considered the case on 4.12.1997 and initiated contempt proceedings against appellants and others suo motu. Matter was remanded to the District Judge for further inquiry in view of the fact that Sujan Singh was not heard in the earlier inquiry. The District Judge submitted the supplementary inquiry report on 12.07.1998. After hearing the parties the judgment was reserved on 12.03.1999. Thereafter, it was listed on 14.12.2001 i.e. after 2 years and 9 months for fresh arguments. However, the counsel for the parties stated that nothing more was required to be submitted except what had been argued earlier. The judgment was pronounced on 20.12.2001. It is apparent from the order sheets itself that the matter remained pending before the Court, so far as the contempt proceedings are concerned, for more than three years which itself is in contravention of the true spirit of the purpose of initiation of the contempt proceedings. In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion that contempt proceedings had been concluded without ensuring the compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rules 1952. The appellants had never been informed as what were the charges against them. The relevant documents on the basis of which the High Court had taken a prima facie view while initiating the contempt proceedings suo motu, had not been made available to them. The notice itself was not only defective, but inaccurate and totally mis-leading. The facts and circumstances of the case warrant reversal of the aforesaid judgment and order. This Court, while entertaining these appeals, granted interim relief to the appellants. Thus, State could not initiate disciplinary proceedings against either of them. The appeals stand allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Contempt is hereby set aside.
|