TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Petitioner does not appear to be prima facie credible. No case is made out to constitute SIT. No doubt about it be you ever so high the law is above you is a well accepted principle but in the instant case the conduct of the Petitioner cannot be said to be above board. Neither it can be said that he has come to the court with clean hands. Petitioner was a high ranking officer but he too cannot be said to be above law. He must undergo the investigation as envisaged by law in case he has committed the offences in question. Coming to question whether criminal contempt proceedings to be initiated, as prayed, learned senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner has heavily relied upon e-mail exchanges filed by Petitioner allegedly from e-mail account of the then AAG with respect to which offence CR. No. 3148/2011 Under Section 66 of the IT Act has been registered. The allegation against Petitioner is of hacking of account and tampering with e-mails with respect to which an FIR has been filed, without meaning to deciding the correctness of the e-mails they are being looked into only for the purpose whether criminal contempt of the Court has been committed. The e-mail exchang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State Government. Similarly Crl. Misc. Petition No. 15875/2015 for aforesaid directions and for impleadment as Respondents-Crl. Misc. Petition No. 15877/2015 has been filed. 3. In Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 135/2011, the Petitioner has averred that investigation of I-CR No. 149/2011 is required to be transferred to CBI or any other investigating agency/SIT outside the control of the then Chief Minister of Gujarat. Since the aforesaid FIR had been lodged with a view to falsely implicate, pressurize and intimidate the Petitioner and other witnesses as the Petitioner in statements before the SIT as well as before the Commission of Enquiry has divulged certain facts which have the potential of directly implicating high functionary of State of Gujarat in the riots of 2002 alleging that there is an unholy nexus between the prosecuting agency and higher echelons of the Government of Gujarat in certain judicial proceedings including W.P. (Civil) No. 221/2002. 4. The Petitioner has submitted that he joined the service as an IPS Officer way-back in the year 1988 and was allocated to the State of Gujarat. From December, 1999 to September, 2002, he was posted as Deputy Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner had lodged FIR (P-5) at Navrangpura Police Station registered as I-CR. No. 449/2010. Again the incident was repeated on the intervening night of 8th and 9th November, 2010 and a steel almirah which could not be broken open on the earlier occasion, was broken and searched. FIR (P-6) was lodged at Navrangpura Police Station as I-CR No. 456/2010. The Petitioner requested for adequate security cover vide letter dated 14.2.2011 (P-7). 6. On 15.3.2011 this Court directed the Chairman, SIT to carry out investigation and submit a report on the observations made by the amicus curiae appointed by this Court. Pursuant thereto the Petitioner was summoned by the SIT Under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the investigation of Meghani Nagar Police Station, I-CR. No. 67/2002. He was issued summons (P-10) for 21.3.2011 Under Section 160 Code of Criminal Procedure The SIT started recording of statements of the Petitioner on 21.3.2011 which was concluded on 25.3.2011. On 25.3.2011 while recording statement of the Petitioner, the SIT expressed its inability to encompass the details indicative of larger conspiracy of official orchestration behind Gujarat riots ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idavit affirmed by Mr. K.D. Panth to the amicus curiae. The Petitioner came to know on 22.6.2011 that senior police officials pressurized Mr. K.D. Panth and made him to affirm the affidavit before the Executive Magistrate at Gandhinagar negating the earlier affidavit sworn by him before the Notary Public on 17.6.2011. A written complaint was prepared at the behest of Mr. K.D. Panth on the basis of which at 2330 hrs. on 22.6.2011 an FIR (P-13) was registered at Ghatlodia Police Station as I-CR. No. 149/2011. In the course of the statement before the Commission, the counsel for the State of Gujarat intimidated to the effect that the Petitioner was crossing the line. Certain applications were filed in the ongoing criminal sessions cases to summon the Petitioner Under Section 311 as a witness in May-June, 2011. The FIR has been registered against the Petitioner. He has no hope of fair investigation in CR. No. 149/2011 hence the petition has been preferred. 8. The State of Gujarat in its counter affidavit has inter alia raised the question of maintainability of the petition and has submitted that the Petitioner is guilty of suppressing certain facts and has made incorrect stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The affidavit sent by the Petitioner in SLP (Crl.) No. 1088/2008 was not taken on record. This fact has been suppressed by the Petitioner. He is acting at the behest of rival political party in the State of Gujarat. The State has made serious allegations against the Petitioner and real motives to file the petition in this Court. It has placed on record e-mails sent/received by the Petitioner which indicate that the Petitioner has interacted with the Deputy leader of Assembly belonging to rival political party. He has tried to influence amicus curiae and the 3-member Bench of this Court by using media card and using pressure groups. He was receiving packages and materials from the leader of rival political party in Gujarat. He has referred to rival political party as his own party. While being cross-examined by the opposition parties before Justice Nanavati Commission, Petitioner has send e-mail that the performance of the advocate of the rival political party was pathetic and mentioned that I am under exploited . 11. Petitioner was also negotiating with several vested interest groups, NGOs. and was trying to influence the amicus curiae appointed by this Court. E-mails reveal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said party and was permitted to leave early in the morning hours after preparation of affidavit dated 17.6.2011. All the movements are substantiated by the mobile call records and mobile tower locations. Respondent No. 4 has given the statement before the SIT constituted by this Court. The Petitioner is making frivolous contentions. 15. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5-SIT contending that the evidence given by Mr. Bhatt is absolutely unreliable. His antecedents have been mentioned in detail. The Petitioner remained posted in various capacities in the State of Gujarat. There were 3 departmental inquiries pending against him. He was given 3 promotions of Junior Administrative Grade, Selection Grade and DIG Grade vide orders dated 6.8.2005, 3.9.2005 and 24.7.2006 respectively. He was not given IGP Grade as other departmental enquiries and criminal cases were pending against him. Chargesheet was served upon him on 29.12.2010 for irregularities in the Police recruitment under his Chairmanship as SP, Banaskantha. In the year 1990, the Petitioner allegedly committed atrocities on peaceful and innocent villagers belonging to a place called Jamjodhp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t State Vigilance Commission had recommended on 15.7.2002 and 19.10.2006 suspension of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt. However, his suspension was not ordered. Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt did not look after political and communal matters during 2002 Gujarat riots. 17. SIT has further submitted in the counter affidavit that the claim of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt that he was present in meeting convened by the then Chief Minister on the night of 27.2.2002, could not be substantiated during SIT investigation. In this regard SIT has already submitted its report in the Court of XIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad City on 8.2.2012 in compliance of the orders passed by this Court on 12.9.2011 in addition to the final report already submitted by the SIT in this Court on 25.4.2011. The theory put forth by the Petitioner appears to be far-fetched, imaginary and unsubstantiated. 18. The allegations made against the SIT leaking sensitive and confidential contents are absolutely false, baseless and motivated. The e-mails relating to Sohrabuddin encounter which was not investigated by SIT, the Convener of SIT did not have anything whatsoever to do with the matters pending investigation/inquiry/trial with the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orged documents in this Court. 21. It is further contended by SIT in its reply that the Petitioner had given wide publicity to the affidavit dated 14.4.2011 through electronic and print media. However, after enquiries SIT has come to the conclusion that Mr. Bhatt was not present in the meeting convened by the then Chief Minister on 27.2.2002. 22. It is further contended by SIT that on 17.6.2011, Mr. K.D. Panth sent an application to the Chairman, SIT enclosing a copy of affidavit affirmed before an Executive Magistrate, Gandhinagar stating that his statement before the SIT on 5.4.2011 was without any pressure or motivation. He has further stated that in the early hours on 17.6.2011 the affidavit was got signed from him by Petitioner-Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt fraudulently after threatening him, for which a complaint was lodged with the local police. Prayer has been made that action be taken against the Petitioner for committing contempt of court and also misleading the court by placing incorrect facts and e-mail pertaining to Sohrabuddin encounter case by State Police CID (Crime). Petitioner has filed additional affidavit. Petitioner has submitted that his e-mail account has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the counsel appearing on behalf of Pranab Badekha. Petitioner has submitted that SIT reports were given to the State counsel and amicus curiae. They were ultimately forwarded to Mr. Gurumurthy who in turn had advised counsel for the accused Pranab Badekha in this Court. The then AAG had exchanged e-mail with respect to Mr. Bipin Ambalal Patel to his Advocate in this Court. Certain documents were also forwarded to the other counsel. Certain e-mails by Mr. Swaminathan to other functionaries and by AAG to other State functionaries have been filed along with additional affidavit on 29.7.2011. E-mail exchange of Mr. Gurumurthy to correspondent of a newspaper has also been filed. The then AAG had also drafted a political memorandum addressed to the Hon'ble President of India to be submitted by the leaders on behalf of the ruling party of the State. In Sohrabuddin's case investigation was transferred to the CBI. Thus, the then AAG was helping the accused as well as acting on behalf of the State. State of Gujarat was obtaining the advice of Mr. Gurumurthy. Petitioner has also submitted that in Ishrat Jahan encounter case, SIT investigation was ordered. In that connection also the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with respect to the meeting dated 27.2.2002 require to be looked into. Petitioner was present in the said meeting and when he disclosed certain facts against the then Chief Minister the case has been filed by Mr. K.D. Panth at the instigation of certain officers of the State machinery. In the circumstances, investigation made by the State Police cannot be fair and impartial investigation and due to the changed scenario at the national level, even the CBI cannot be relied upon as pressure may also be exerted upon the CBI. Thus a Special Investigation Team (SIT) be formed to make an investigation under the supervision of this Court. The investigation is going to have wide ramifications as to what transpired in the meeting dated 27.2.2002, notwithstanding the fact that a chargesheet has been filed, this Court has ample power to direct investigation by an independent agency by forming a Special Investigation Team of different independent officers. Learned senior Counsel has taken us through various documents on record including the e-mails to contend that there had been leakage of SIT reports, SIT itself has leaked the reports. She has also taken us through various exchange of e-mails ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State of Gujarat. She has further submitted what was exchanged between the parties were confidential documents supposed to be submitted before this Court as well as the State of Gujarat in criminal cases and the documents to be filed on behalf of the State were being shared with individuals who had no connection with the ongoing legal proceedings. Even the documents to be filed on behalf of the accused were being prepared by the law officers of the State with assistance from senior officials of the State. Thus, a prima facie case of criminal contempt has been made out against the Respondent sought to be impleaded by the Petitioner. She has relied upon Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act to contend that act which interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice amounts to criminal contempt for which action be initiated. 28. It was further submitted by learned senior Counsel that counter affidavit of Respondent No. 2 discloses sufficient reason to constitute SIT. It was further submitted that free and fair investigation is an integral part and a fair trial Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of II-CR No. 3148/2011 cannot be entrusted to the State Police. In the facts and circumstances, investigation cannot be entrusted to the State Police or to the CBI. He has also taken us through the various documents to take home his submissions. 30. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing for the State of Gujarat has submitted that considering the overall conduct of the Petitioner, e-mail exchange of the Petitioner with the political party in opposition, NGOs., media persons and Others indicates that the Petitioner has concocted the story as an afterthought and anyhow or somehow want to keep issue alive. SIT reports in 9 cases were made available to the State of Gujarat on 2.3.2009. They were forwarded by the counsel to the State of Gujarat on 6.3.2009. On 1.5.2009 this Court had passed an order disposing of the main matter. In National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 767, this Court vacated the stay on commencement of the trial. It was submitted that SIT reports which were made available to the State of Gujarat, in none of these reports there was any substance of any investigation. Reports did not contain confidential mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deliberation with several persons, groups and NGOs. In case Petitioner was present in meeting dated 27.2.2002 he would not have kept quiet for 9 years. He did not state the said fact in 2009 before SIT. 32. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of SIT submitted that SIT had been constituted by this Court and its work has been appreciated. This Court has monitored its investigation. Petitioner had made unwarranted allegations against SIT for no good cause. Petitioner has not stated about the factum of meeting dated 27.2.2002 with the then Chief Minister in his first statement recorded by SIT in the year 2009. SIT did not pressurise Mr. K.D. Panth not to support Petitioner when his statement was recorded. On due investigation made by the SIT, the presence of the Petitioner was not found in meeting dated 27.2.2002. The allegation made against SIT of disclosing the reports is absolutely incorrect. The Member of the SIT had sent report of Sohrabuddin encounter case which was not entrusted to SIT but was looked after by Ms. Geetha Johri, Member, SIT, in a different capacity of State officer. He has also pointed out the antecedents of the Petitioner, cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral of Police, Gujarat against 63 persons for commission of offence Under Section 302 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code in relation to Gujarat riots requesting the complaint to be registered as an FIR which was refused. Said Jakia Jafri filed criminal complaint-Special Crl. Application No. 421/2007-seeking a direction to register the case as an FIR vide order dated 2.11.2007. SLP (Crl.) No. 1088/2008 was preferred by said Jakia Jafri. On 3.3.2008 this Court issued notice. On 26.3.2008 in National Human Rights Commission case-W.P. (Crl.) No. 109/2003, this Court has passed an order constituting a Special Investigation Team to investigate 9 major cases pertaining to Gujarat riots of 2002. On 27.4.2009 this Court directed SIT to look into the allegations made into the complaint of Ms. Jakia Jafri. On 1.5.2009 this Court vacated the stay of trial of 9 cases and directed that SIT would continue to monitor the trial and submit periodic reports every 3 months. On 30.7.2009, SIT submitted interim report in Jakia Jafri's case. Petitioner was examined by SIT appointed by this Court at Gandhinagar in the context of Jakia Jafri's complaint. The allegation of Jakia Jafri was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to contend that petition has not been filed bona fide. In the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner, the e-mails which have been referred to in the return filed by the State of Gujarat have not been controverted or alleged to be incorrect in any manner by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has annexed full text of some of the e-mails along with rejoinder. However substance of the e-mails remains the same. Though the Petitioner has also mentioned in the rejoinder affidavit that he has filed complaint with the DIG (Police), Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police regarding unauthorized hacking of his e-mail account. It is not understandable a senior officer of Police like Petitioner has filed complaint to Economic Offences Wing which is not at all concerned with offences like hacking of e-mails. To avoid embarrassment at large, we deem it appropriate to quote only some relevant portions of the e-mails of Petitioner which have been heavily relied upon. Certain e-mails were exchanged on 27th and 28th April, 2011 between the Petitioner and political leader of rival party. Petitioner required him to send copy of the note and even tried to suggest the points if necessary. Political leader ulti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27.2.2002. Petitioner has sent e-mail to the said correspondent to the effect that May be you can mention that I had met him (Sanjiv Bhatt) on 27th when he was about to go to the disputed meeting . The Petitioner had send an e-mail to one of the TV channels on 19.5.2011 to the following effect: Filed an affidavit in Supreme Court on 16th May, saying that he was with me when he had to leave for CM's meeting on 27th. Kindly confirm through your sources in Supreme Court. In one of the e-mails the Petitioner even asks Correspondent whether he would be comfortable with xxxxxxx? (Names of media persons). Ultimately, when the reluctance of said correspondent still persists, the Petitioner writes to him as under: My feeling is what we could let the press sniff it out and contact you. It will not make a good story for them, but, make the print media to take notice of your affidavit and finally force the hand of amicus and Supreme Court to take notice and subsequent affirmative action. 40. Petitioner had also sent other e-mails to few TV channels. Petitioner has also sent yet another e-mail to the said correspondent suggesting him to play the media ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that Haren Pandya was also there in CM's residence on 27.2.2002. Petitioner was also trying to ascertain the precise time of the meeting in his e-mail exchange with the said officer. The Petitioner had sent another e-mail to the said officer. The same is to the following effect: The deposition went well. The cross could have been a little better. I felt a little under-exploited! Lets hope they exploit me fully during subsequent hearings. Petitioner has also exchanged e-mails with others to recreate his movement on 27.2.2002. 43. The aforesaid exchange of e-mails which are self-explanatory indicate that the Petitioner was in active touch with leaders of rival political party, NGOs., their lawyers tried to play media card, was being tutored by NGOs. The manner in which he acted is apparent from the aforesaid e-mails and need not be repeated. Petitioner had probably forgotten that he was senior IPS Officer. In case he was fairly stating a fact after 9 years he ought not to have entered into the aforesaid exercise and kept away from all politics and activism of creating pressure, even upon 3-Judge Bench of this Court, amicus and many others. Thus the entire con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 and Mr. Panth has not supported the stand of the Petitioner that he attended the meeting dated 27.2.2002. Later on Petitioner as per his own case, got drafted and obtained the affidavit of Mr. Panth and Mr. Tara Chand Yadav and he had provided legal assistance to them and had handed over the affidavit of Mr. Panth to the amicus curiae appointed by this Court; whereas Mr. Panth did not turn up to handover his own affidavit. It is also apparent that the Petitioner had acted in deliberation and consultation with the leaders of rival political party, NGOs. and had sent the e-mails to the effect that he was not fully exploited by a counsel of the rival political party while his statement was being recorded before Justice Nanavati Commission. He had exchanged emails with rival political party leaders and was being tutored by the lawyer of NGO and its activist. Ghost questions and answers were also prepared as to what the Petitioner was required to speak before Justice Nanavati Commission. Petitioner has used the media card, has even sent the e-mails to influence the judicial proceedings of a 3-Judge Bench of this Court and has tried to influence the amicus curiae. The e-mails also indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id occasions, fairly and rightly conceded that it was the duty of the Petitioner to state on the aforesaid occasions as to the emails but their explanation that Petitioner was ultimately pushed to the wall by registering a criminal case at the behest of Mr. Panth, then he disclosed the e-mails, is also not acceptable as the Petitioner's statement before Justice Nanavati Commission continued even after the date of registration of offence. The aforesaid explanation does not appear to be sound one. The Petitioner has filed the e-mails first time in this Court along with affidavit dated 29.7.2011. This was around the time when the report as to hacking of e-mail account and tampering with the e-mails was filed by the then AAG against the Petitioner. The questions of delay and explanation are ultimately to be gone into finally in criminal case II-CR. No. 3148/2011, without meaning to decide in present proceedings, the overall conduct of the Petitioner does not inspire confidence. 48. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that since he was present in the meeting dated 27.2.2011 and this aspect is material for the cases in question, as such considering ramifications, this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e SIT and Mr. K.D. Panth on 6.4.2011. The Petitioner had sent an unsolicited affidavit on 14.4.2011 to this Court which was not taken on record. Petitioner was also summoned by Justice Nanavati Commission on 27.4.2011. The SIT conducted further investigation Under Section 173(8) in the Gulberg Society case and submitted its report on 24.4.2011. This Court examined the report dated 24.4.2011 submitted by SIT and directed on 5.5.2011 that a copy of the same be supplied to the learned amicus curiae who shall examine the reports of the SIT and make an independent assessment of the witnesses statements recorded by the SIT and submit his comments thereon and also observed that it would be open to the learned amicus curiae to interact with any of the witnesses who have been examined by SIT including the Police officers. Thereafter, Petitioner had appeared before the amicus curiae on 18.6.2011 and handed over disputed affidavit dated 17.6.2011 of Mr. K.D. Panth who failed to turn up before the amicus curiae. On 25.7.2011 amicus curiae submitted his final report before this Court. SIT had prepared a final report in the aforesaid matter and this Court on 12.9.2011 disposed of Jakia Jafri' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T to obtain from the amicus curiae copies of his reports submitted to this Court. The said court will deal with the matter in accordance with law relating to the trial of the accused, named in the report/charge-sheet, including matters falling within the ambit and scope of Section 173(8) of the Code. 11. However, at this juncture, we deem it necessary to emphasise that if for any stated reason SIT opines in its report, to be submitted in terms of this order, that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds for proceeding against any person named in the complaint dated 8-6-2006, before taking a final decision on such closure report, the court shall issue notice to the complainant and make available to her copies of the statements of the witnesses, other related documents and the investigation report strictly in accordance with law as enunciated by this Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police (1985) 2 SCC 537. For the sake of ready reference, we may note that in the said decision, it has been held that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded Under Section 173(2)(i) of the Code, decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formation pertaining to CID (Crime) to the then AAG. That information absolutely had nothing to do with the matters pending investigation/inquiry/trial with the Supreme Court-appointed SIT for Godhra cases. Petitioner had made deliberate attempt to mislead this Court and has enclosed only the covering text of the e-mails and intentionally avoided the enclosures because the same would have exposed falsity of his stand. The two e-mails dated 14.2.2009 sent by Ms. Geetha Zohri to the then AAG have been filed along with the enclosures by SIT. A report in this regard had already been submitted by SIT to this Court on 23.2.2011. Thus the Petitioner is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. He has suppressed the enclosures which he ought to have filed and ought not to have made false allegations in the writ petition that SIT was exchanging sensitive and confidential information with the then AAG. It is unfortunate that on the one hand Petitioner has prayed for appointment of SIT and on the other has not spared SIT appointed by this Court and has made false allegations against it. The conduct of the Petitioner cannot be said to be desirable. 52. Coming to the question whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the Petitioner that counter affidavit filed in W.P. (Crl.) No. 135/2011 discloses sufficient reason to constitute SIT in which in the reply filed by Respondent No. 2 it has been mentioned that there is no room for doubt that it is a systematic and larger conspiracy through the Petitioner of rival political party in Gujarat and vested interest groups surviving on anti-Gujarat campaign all of whom had started efforts to keep the Godhra riot issue live based on concocted facts and the Petitioner, through all of them, is trying to build up a story at a stage when after almost 10 long years this Court has virtually concluded the judicial proceedings after undertaking tremendous judicial exercise . In our opinion, by the aforesaid averment in the reply no case is made out for investigation by the SIT into I-CR. No. 149/2011 relating to preparation of affidavit or for that matter in II-Crime No. 3148/2011 relating to hacking of e-mail account and tampering with it. These are not such cases of wide amplitude so as to warrant SIT to be constituted or even the CBI to be entrusted with the investigation. It is not for the Petitioner to choose the investigating machinery as held by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned senior Counsel that there is a need for investigation by an independent agency when the local police officials and State officials are involved. For that, learned senior Counsel has relied upon R.S. Sodhi, Advocate v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1994) Supp 1 SCC 143 as follows: 2.....we think that since the accusations are directed against the local police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the investigation to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned including the relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an independent agency is looking into the matter and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility. However faithfully the local police may carry out the investigation, the same will lack credibility since the allegations are against them. It is only with that in mind that we having thought it both advisable and desirable as well as in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation forthwith and we do hope that it would complete the investigation at an early date so that those involved in the occurrences, one way or the other, may be brought to book. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, bureaucrats and criminals, who are all recipients of money from unlawful sources given for unlawful considerations; that the CBI and other government agencies have failed to fully investigate into the matter and take it to the logical end point of the trial and to prosecute all persons who have committed any crime; that this is being done with a view to protect the persons involved, who are very influential and powerful in the present set up; that the matter discloses a definite nexus between crime and corruption in public life at high places in the country which poses a serious threat to the integrity, security and economy of the nation; that probity in public life, to prevent erosion of the rule of law and the preservation of democracy in the country, requires that the government agencies be compelled to duly perform their legal obligations and to proceed in accordance with law against each and every person involved, irrespective of the height at which he is placed in the power set up. 3. The facts and circumstances of the present case do indicate that it is of utmost public importance that this matter is examined thoroughly by this Court to ensure that all government age ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner has heavily relied upon e-mail exchanges filed by Petitioner allegedly from e-mail account of the then AAG with respect to which offence CR. No. 3148/2011 Under Section 66 of the IT Act has been registered. The allegation against Petitioner is of hacking of account and tampering with e-mails with respect to which an FIR has been filed, without meaning to deciding the correctness of the e-mails they are being looked into only for the purpose whether criminal contempt of the Court has been committed. 63. It was submitted by learned senior Counsel for Petitioner that there was criminal nexus between the then AAG with lawyers of the accused, Ministers and non-State actors to undermine the administration of justice. It was submitted that certain replies etc. which were to be filed in court were shown to Mr. G. Swaminathan who was completely outsider to the litigation. In our opinion merely taking somebody's opinion who is outsider to litigation before filing the reply in the court would not undermine the administration of justice in any way and is not indicative of criminal conspiracy. There are knowledgeable incumbents who can always be consulted and their opinion obta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the then AAG. If they were meant to be confidential Petitioner has also used them and even sent e-mail particulars of the then AAG to media channels. Therefore the submission advanced does not lie in his mouth. Overall exchange has to be considered in the light of sweeping accusations against the State and its large number of functionaries. The conduct of the then AAG in the circumstances he was placed, has been unnecessarily adversely commented upon, the accusation of criminal contempt is not at all made out. 65. Merely sending some representation which was to be submitted to the President and Prime Minister of India, and other documents to an advocate who was a politician also would not tantamount to criminal contempt unless and until it is shown that the information was intended to help the accused in any manner whatsoever, it cannot be said that sharing of information tantamount to criminal contempt. 66. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Rachapudi Subba Rao v. Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh [(1981) 2 SCC 577] in which as to criminal contempt, it has been laid down thus: 14. It is noteworthy, that in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cter of a judge, are punishable contempts. The punishment is inflicted, not for the purpose of protecting either the court as a whole or the individual judges of the court from a repetition of the attack, but of protecting the public, and especially those who either voluntarily or by compulsion are subject to the jurisdiction of the court, from the mischief they will incur if the authority of the tribunal is undermined or impaired. In consequence, the court has regarded with particular seriousness allegations of partiality or bias on the part of a judge or a court. On the other hand, criticism of a judge's conduct or of the conduct of a court, even if strongly worded, is not a contempt provided that the criticism is fair, temperate and made in good faith, and is not directed to the personal character of a judge or to the impartiality of a judge or court. xxx 40. Scandalising the court, therefore, would mean hostile criticism of judges as judges or judiciary. Any personal attack upon a judge in connection with the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory publication concerning the judge as a judge brings the court or judges into conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be regarded as a substantial interference with due course of justice and the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction upon a mere question of propriety. This Court has laid down thus: 10.... the jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice and that the purpose of the Court's action is a practical purpose and it is reasonably clear on the authorities that the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction upon a mere question of propriety. 69. Considering the aforesaid decisions, it does not appear that the e-mail exchange between the then AAG and other functionaries tantamounts to causing prejudice or amounts to substantial interference in any other manner in due course of justice. It is not the case of scandalizing the court or in any manner affecting fair decision of the court or undermining the majesty of the Court/people's confidence in the administration of justice or bringing or tending to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect which tantamount to criminal contempt Under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act. 70. Apart from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
