TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quiry 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 availabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ej Veer Singh made complaint to the Senior Suptd. of Police, Ghaziabad, Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and the Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi. The case was registered only on 04.06.1997 under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called IPC). However, no progress was made in the investigation. Being aggrieved, a Habeas Corpus petition, being numbered as Crl. Misc. (Habeas Corpus) Writ Petition No. 20040 of 1997, was filed in June, 1997 by one M. C. Verma, being next friend of the detenu Tej Veer Singh before the Allahabad High Court. In the said petition, allegations had been made that the respondent therein, Deep Chand, Sub-Inspector of Police and Constable Ramesh Chandra had detained Tej Veer Singh illegally since 29.5.1997 and his whereabouts were not known. 4. As the High Court could not get any information from the State regarding the whereabouts of Tej Veer Singh, the Court, vide order dated 30.07.1997, directed the District Judge, Ghaziabad to hold an inquiry regarding the allegations made in the Habeas Corpus petition. The purpose of holding an inquiry was to find out as to whether the police was responsible for his arrest and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine of rupees one lakh was imposed. In addition, ₹ 5000/- was imposed as costs. The appellants were imposed the punishment of six months' imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 2000/- each. Further direction was issued to the State to terminate their services after holding disciplinary proceedings. Hence, these appeals. 6. Sh. Jitendra Mohan Sharma and Sh. P.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, have submitted that the High Court had committed an error as while disposing of the Habeas Corpus petition it observed that Tej Veer Singh had died and, therefore, no purpose would be served in continuing with the Habeas Corpus petition. There was not even prima facie evidence against the appellants in contempt proceedings. The court did not adopt the fair procedure. Even charges had not been framed. The enquiry conducted by the District Judge, at the most, could be treated to be a preliminary enquiry. The High Court erred in placing reliance on a preliminary enquiry report and convicting the appellants without furnishing the copy thereof to them. More so, the contempt proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature. The Court while deciding the criminal case does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... babrata Bandopadhyay Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal Anr., AIR 1969 SC 189, this Court has observed as under:- A question whether there is contempt of court or not is a serious one. The court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. It behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished......... Punishment under the law of Contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged. The same view has been re-iterated by this Court in Aligarh Municipal Board Ors. Vs. Ekka Tonga Mazdoor Union Ors., AIR 1970 SC 1767; Dushyant Somal (Capt.) Vs. Smt Sushma Somal Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1026; M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar Ors., AIR 1988 SC 127; Niaz Mohammed Ors. Vs. State of Haryana Ors, (1994) 6 SCC 332 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It would be very hazardous to impose sentence in contempt proceedings on some probabilities. 14. In Dr. L.P. Misra Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1998 SC 3337, this Court dealt with an untoward incident i.e. ex-facie contempt in Allahabad High Court wherein, the High Court passed certain orders without following the procedure prescribed in the Rules applicable in such proceedings. This Court held that power of the High Court even under Article 215 of the Constitution has to be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The Court observed as under : 12. ......... we are of the opinion that the Court while passing the impugned order had not followed the procedure prescribed by law. It is true that the High Court can invoke powers and jurisdiction vested in it under Article 215 of the Constitution of India but such a jurisdiction has to be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It is in these circumstances the impugned order cannot be sustained. (Emphasis supplied) 15. In Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.E.S.C. Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 735, this Court held that in contempt proceedings the court must conclude the trial and complete the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be stated depends upon the circumstances. So long as the gist of the specific allegation is made clear or otherwise the contemnor is aware of the specific allegation, it is not always necessary to formulate the charge. So long as the contemnor's interest is adequately safeguarded by giving him an opportunity of being heard in his defence, even summary procedure in the case of contempt cannot be found fault with. 19. In Daroga Singh (supra), this Court observed that in case, the alleged contemnor feels that there is a necessity to cross-examine the witnesses i.e. deponents of affidavits filed against him, the alleged contemnor must be given an opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses provided it is so asked by him. This Court observed that in Contempt proceedings, a summary procedure is to be adopted for the reason that matter is to be disposed of most expeditiously and it is for this reason that in spite of the fact that proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, the procedure under Cr.P.C. or Evidence Act is not made applicable. 20. In view of the above, the law can be summarised that the High Court has a power to initiate the contempt proceedings suo motu for ensu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions contained in the petition as appears to the Court to make out a prima facie case of contempt of Court against the person concerned, shall be reduced into charge or charges by the Court against such person, and notice shall be issued only with respect to those charges. (Emphasis added). Rule 6 thereof provides mandatorily that the show cause notice issued under Rule 5 must be accompanied with material documents. The Rule reads as under:- 6. Documents accompanied notice. - Where an order has been made directing that notice be issued to any person to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of Court, a date shall be fixed for the hearing and a notice thereof in the prescribed form given to the person concerned. The notice of a criminal contempt shall also be served on the Government Advocate. The notice shall be accompanied by copies of the application, motion and the affidavit or a copy of the reference by a subordinate court as the case may be, and a copy of the charge or charges as framed by the Court, and shall require the person concerned to appear, unless otherwise ordered, in person before the Court at the time and on the date specified therein to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated by the High Court suo motu. The notice itself remains incomplete, inaccurate and mis-leading. The Registry of the High Court issued the dotted lines notice without any sense of responsibility. The notice did not mention as what was the allegation/accusation against either of them. It did not contain any charge(s) against either of them. In D.K. Basu (supra) this Court has issued as many as eleven directions to the police authorities inter-alia, furnishing the information of the person arrested to his relatives; the person should be arrested only by the police officials with clear identification marks; a memo of arrest is to be prepared at the time of arrest, which should be attested at least by some person from the locality; the time, place of arrest and venue of custody must be disclosed etc. etc. This Court further observed that non-observance of any of the directions issued therein would make the Police personnel liable for departmental action and render them liable to be punished for Contempt of Court and proceedings for Contempt of Court would be initiated in the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. 24. The notice did not make any reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingh was not heard in the earlier inquiry. The District Judge, Ghaziabad, 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. 27. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
