9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.3 of 2013 and Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy, learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent in both the appeals and perused the documents filed. 4. Seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 therein to complete the investigation on the complaints dated 23.05.2011 and 25.05.2011 with a further direction to file a Final Report before the jurisdictional Court, the first respondent herein has filed Cr.O.P.No.25046 of 2011. By an order dated 25.01.2012, the following was passed by the learned single Judge. 8. Today, when the petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate apologized before the open Court for the wrong committed by the concerned police officer. Considering the apology tendered by the learned Government Advocate, this Court finds that the contempt proceedings need not be continued and it may be closed. However, it is ascertained that the second respondent police has now registered the case based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 23.05.2011. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to take up the case for investigation in an impartial manner and file the final report within a period of 60 days without loss of further time. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complaint was registered by taking note of the order passed by this Court would not amount to a contumacious act. The subsequent communication sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate about the complicity of the another accused has no nexus with the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.25046 of 2011. Even assuming, a mistake is committed in the course of an official duty, it would not warrant an action for wilful disobedience. The first respondent has been seeking remedy through the Court of law against the final report filed by the appellant. There is neither a civil nor a criminal contempt made out against the appellant. The learned single Judge has wrongly went into the functioning of the appellant in his official capacity, which is not warranted being one beyond the scope of the contempt jurisdiction. Therefore, the contempt appeal has to be allowed. 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the appellant has wrongly relied upon the order passed by this Court. There was no direction to register a case. There is no business for the appellant to send a communication to the jurisdictional Magistrate about the involvement of another accused being the purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (Vide: V.G. Nigam & Ors. v. Kedar Nath Gupta & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 2153; Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 3468; Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1405; Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 942; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr., AIR 2013 SC 1299). 10. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., AIR 2001 SC 1293, the Court while dealing with the issue whether a doubt persisted as to the applicability of the order of this Court to complainants held that it would not give rise to a contempt petition. The court was dealing with a case wherein the statutory authorities had come to the conclusion that the order of this court was not applicable to the said complainants while dealing with the case under the provision of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. 13. It is well settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. (See: Sushila Raje Holkar v. Anil Kak (Retd.), AIR 2008 (Supp-2) SC 1837; and Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 735). Keeping the above said principles in view, let us see the case on hand. 11. Admittedly, the appellant was not a party to the order passed in Crl.O.P.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
