Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2011 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 1481 - SUPREME COURTContempt proceedings - order of sentence against the appellant / Commissioner of police - Allegation that, Respondent No. 2 (IO) made Incorrect/false statement for cancellation of bail in the knowledge of Appellant - Offence punishable u/s 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act) - Respondent No. 1 was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly (`MLA') - Large scale violence and several attempts of booth capturing were reported on the day of election - HELD THAT:- The contempt proceedings being quasi criminal in nature, burden and standard of proof is the same as required in criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not permit imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings on mere probabilities, equally, the court cannot punish the alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and surmises. The analysis of affidavits of the Inspector of Police, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police show that there is no acceptable material that the affidavit containing wrong information filed by Respondent No. 2 for cancellation of bail and stay of bail order was made at the instance of the Commissioner of Police. We have already pointed out that the appellant has assumed charge as the Commissioner of Police only on 17.05.2001 i.e. after formation of the new government. The violence in respect of election that took place on 10.05.2001, particularly, the incident relating to Respondent No. 1 was one week before his taking over charge as Commissioner of Police. When a city like Chennai is managed by several police officers from the level of police constable to the Commissioner of Police, in the absence of specific reference about consultation with the Commissioner of Police or direction to the two officers, namely, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police merely because both of them attended the office of the Public Prosecutor for preparation of an application for cancellation of bail based on the affidavit of the Inspector of Police, it cannot be presumed and concluded that the appellant was responsible for giving incorrect information by Respondent No. 2 before the High Court. We have pointed out that while dealing with criminal contempt in terms of Section 2(c) of the Act, strict procedures are to be adhered. The person filing an application or petition before the court does not become a complainant or petitioner in the proceedings. He is just an informer or relator. His duty ends with the facts being brought to the notice of the court. It is thereafter for the court to act on such information or not. [Vide Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. D.K. Mittal [2000 (2) TMI 831 - SUPREME COURT], Further Section 15 of the Act as well as the Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules insist that, particularly, for initiation of criminal contempt, consent of the Advocate General is required. Any deviation from the prescribed Rules should not be accepted or condoned lightly and must be deemed to be fatal to the proceedings taken to initiate action for contempt. In the present case, the above provisions have not been strictly adhered to and even the notice issued by the then Division Bench merely sought for explanation from the appellant about the allegations made by Respondent No. 1. We have already noted that (Respondent No. 2) Inspector of Police, who made an incorrect/false statement for cancellation of bail has been rightly punished by the Division Bench of the High Court and this Court affirmed the same by dismissing his special leave petition. Hence, the order of the HC convicting the appellant u/s 2(c) and sentencing him u/s 12 of the Act to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
|