Muthu Karuppan Vs. Parithi
Ilamvazhuthi & ANR.
J U D G M E N T
P. Sathasivam, J.
1.
This
appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 29.10.2004 passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt
Petition No. 397 of 2001 whereby the High Court held the respondents therein
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 (in short `the Act') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days
under Section 12 of the Act.
2.
Brief
Facts:(a) Parithi Ilamvazhuthi-Respondent No. 1 herein was elected as Member of
Legislative Assembly (in short `MLA') of the Egmore Constituency, Chennai in the
Elections held on 10.05.2001 to the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly.
Large scale violence and several attempts of booth capturing were reported on
the day of election. In respect of the same, Crime No. 958 of 2001 was registered
against his opposite party candidate John Pandian and others for various
offences. Similarly, Crime No. 960 of 2001 was registered against Respondent No.
1 by one David for various offences. John Pandian was arrested on 10.05.2001
and remanded to judicial custody. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for
anticipatory bail being Crl. M.P. No. 6244 of 2001 before the Sessions Court, Chennai
and the same was dismissed on 16.05.2001 stating that the investigation is at an
early stage and enlargement would hamper the investigation. (b) On 17.05.2001, Respondent
No. 1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
On the same day, Muthu
Karuppan-the appellant herein was appointed as 2Commissioner of Police, Greater
Chennai City and assumed charge. On 21.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 moved an
application for bail being Crl. M.P. No. 1379 of 2001 before the XIV
Metropolitan Magistrate which was dismissed on the same day. On 22.05.2001,
Respondent No. 1 moved an application for bail being Crl. M.P. No. 6277 of 2001
before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai mainly on the ground that he has
to attend the Assembly which has commenced on 22.05.2001 to take oath as MLA. On
23.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 was granted conditional bail by the Sessions
Judge. (c) On 24.05.2001, Rajendra Kumar, Inspector of Police, (L&O), Tamil
Nadu-Respondent No. 2 herein, filed an application for cancellation of bail
being Crl. O.P. No. 9352 of 2001 before the High Court of Madras and sought for
stay of bail granted to Respondent No. 1 herein. On the same day, learned single
Judge of the High Court stayed the order of grant of bail and ordered notice to
Respondent No. 1 on the ground that the victim, namely, David is in a serious
condition and the accused is in police custody.
On 28.05.2001, on
receipt of the said notice, Respondent No. 1 filed a counter 3affidavit submitting
that the statement of Respondent No. 2 regarding police custody is false. On
29.05.2001, Respondent No. 2 filed his reply affidavit admitting that it was a
mistake by oversight and the same is neither willful nor wanton. (d) On 30.05.2001,
the petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed by the High Court holding
that no ground was made out for cancellation of the bail. After the order dated
30.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 filed Contempt Application No. 397 of 2001 before the
High Court stating that on the direction, supervision and knowledge of the appellant
herein, Respondent No. 2 moved an application to cancel the bail granted to him
on the basis of false statement thereby prevented him from attending the
Assembly. (e) On 29.10.2004, the Division Bench of the High Court held the respondents
therein guilty of the offence punishable under Section 2(c) of the Act and sentenced
them to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days under Section 12 of the Act. (f)
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, appellant herein filed
Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 2004 before this Court and on 13.12.2004, this
Court admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the impugned order insofar
as it relates to the appellant. Respondent No. 2 also filed Criminal Appeal No.
1500 of 2004 before this Court and by order dated 05.01.2005, this Court
dismissed the appeal on merits holding that the case of the Commissioner of
Police stands entirely on a different footing.
3.
Heard
Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Altaf Ahmed,
learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
4.
Before
going into the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order of the Division
Bench punishing the appellant for the offence under Section 2(c) of the Act and
sentencing him under Section 12 of the Act to undergo simple imprisonment for 7
days, it is useful to refer the facts leading to initiation of contempt proceeding.
It is the grievance of Respondent No. 1 that after the grant of bail, Respondent
No. 2 filed a false affidavit in Criminal O.P. No. 9352 of 2001 that the police
custody had been ordered by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate on 23.05.2001,
based on which, the learned single Judge of the High Court stayed the order of grant
of bail passed in favour of Respondent No. 1. After preliminary examination, the
Division Bench, by order dated 20.06.2001, issued notice to Respondent No. 2 herein
to show cause as to why contempt proceeding against him should not be initiated
for having made false statement with intent to mislead the Court.
In the same proceeding,
the Division Bench directed issuance of notice to the Commissioner of Police-appellant
herein as to the averments of an elected MLA being in police custody could not reasonably
have been made prima facie without the knowledge of the Commissioner, more so, when
the election had just taken place and the elected member was required to take
oath, but by reason of his detention was being prevented from taking oath. In the
same paragraph, it was further stated that the extent to which the Commissioner
had knowledge about the filing of the petition for cancellation of bail, the
instructions, if any, he had given in that regard, the persons to whom such instructions
had been given and the nature of instructions shall also be disclosed by the
Commissioner in his affidavit.
5.
Based
on the notice issued by the Division Bench in its order dated 20.06.2001, the
appellant-Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, at the relevant time and the
second respondent Inspector of Police (L&O), Chennai filed separate affidavits
explaining their stand.
6.
In
order to understand the above issue, it is relevant to refer Section 2(c) of the
Act which defines criminal contempt as: "(c) "criminal contempt"
means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act
whatsoever which-
i.
scandalizes
or tends to scandalize, of lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any
court; or
ii.
prejudices,
or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial
proceeding; or
iii.
interferes
or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
administration of justice in any other manner."
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Giving
false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed
with a strong hand. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered
expedient in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent, but there must be
a prima facie case of "deliberate falsehood" on a matter of substance
and the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the
charge.
8.
In
a series of decisions, this Court held that the enquiry/contempt proceedings
should be initiated by the court in exceptional circumstances where the court
is of the opinion that perjury has been committed by a party deliberately to
have some beneficial order from the court. There must be grounds of a nature
higher than mere surmise or suspicion for initiating such proceedings. There must
be distinct evidence of the commission of an offence by such a person as mere
suspicion cannot bring home the charge of making false statement, more so, the court
has to determine as on facts whether it is expedient in the interest of justice
to enquire into offence which appears to have been committed.
9.
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 8imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings on mere
probabilities, equally, the court cannot punish the alleged contemnor without
any foundation merely on conjectures and surmises. As observed above, the
contempt proceeding being quasi criminal in nature require strict adherence to the
procedure prescribed under the rules applicable in such proceedings.
10.
In
exercise of the powers conferred on the High Court under Articles 215 and 225
of the Constitution of India and in terms of Section 23 of the Act, the Madras High
Court Contempt of Court Rules, 1975 (in short `the Rules') have been framed. The
said Rules prescribe procedure for initiating contempt and various steps to be
adhered to. By drawing our attention to the Rules, Mr. Ganguli, learned senior
counsel for the appellant submitted that Rules 4 and 8 have not been complied
with. By emphasizing the principles in paras 12 and 16 of the decision of this
Court in R.S. Sujatha vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2010 (12) Scale 556, learned
senior counsel submitted that the contempt proceedings being quasi criminal in nature
require strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the rules applicable
to such proceedings. He also pointed out that while sending notice, relevant
documents have not been enclosed and the consent of Advocate General was not obtained
for initiating contempt proceedings against the appellant. Insofar as the documents
referred to being certain orders of the court, no serious objection was taken
note of for not sending the same.Consent of the Advocate General
11.
The
relevant provision which deals with cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases
is Section 15 of the Act which reads as under: "15. Cognizance of criminal
contempt in other cases.--(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a
contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take
action on its own motion or on a motion made by (a) the Advocate-General, or (b)
any other person, with the consent in writing to the Advocate-General, or (c) in
relation to the High Court for the Union territory of Delhi, such Law Officer
as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify
in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer."
10The whole object of prescribing procedural mode of taking cognizance is to
safeguard the valuable time of the Court from being wasted by frivolous contempt
petitions. In State of Kerala vs. M.S. Mani & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 82, this Court
held that the requirement of obtaining prior consent of the Advocate General in
writing for initiating proceedings of criminal contempt is mandatory and failure
to obtain prior consent would render the motion non-maintainable. In case, a
party obtains consent subsequent to filing of the petition, it would not cure
the initial defect and thus, the petition would not become maintainable.
12.
In
Bal Thackrey vs. Harish Pimpalkhute & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 396, this Court
held that in absence of the consent of the Advocate General in respect of a
criminal contempt filed by a party under Section 15 of the Act, taking suo motu
action for contempt without a prayer, was not maintainable.
13.
However,
in Amicus Curiae vs. Prashant Bhushan and Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 592, this Court
has considered the earlier judgments and held that in a rare case, even if the
cognizance is deemed to have been taken in terms of Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate
Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, without the consent of the
Attorney General or the Solicitor General, the proceedings must be held to be
maintainable in view of the fact that the issues involved in the proceedings
had far reaching greater ramifications and impact on the administration of justice
and on the justice delivery system and the credibility of the court in the eyes
of general public.
14.
It
is clear from the recent decision of this Court in Prashant Bhushan's case (supra)
that if the issue involved in the proceedings had greater impact on the
administration of justice and on the justice delivery system, the court is
competent to go into the contempt proceedings even without the consent of the
Advocate General as the case may be.
15.
Now,
coming to the merits of the impugned order of the High Court, contempt proceeding
was initiated mainly on the basis of a false statement made on oath by Respondent
No. 2 which resulted in stay of the bail order passed by the Sessions 12Judge, Chennai
in favour of the Respondent No. 1, and prevented him from taking oath in the Assembly.
Inasmuch as the High Court has dealt with the issue elaborately on factual
aspects and we also adverted to the same in the earlier part of our judgment, there
is no need to traverse the same once again. In respect of violence on the day of
election, Respondent No. 1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.05.2001.
On the same day, that
is, on 17.05.2001, the appellant was appointed as Commissioner of Police, Greater
Chennai City and assumed charge. On 21.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 moved an
application for bail in Crl. M.P. No. 1379 of 2001 before the XIV Metropolitan
Magistrate which was dismissed on the same day. On 22.05.2001, Respondent No. 1
moved an application for bail before the Sessions Judge in Crl. M.P. No. 6277 of
2001 mainly on the ground that as the new Assembly Session commences on 22.05.2001,
he has to take oath and further the victim, namely, David has also been discharged
from the hospital. On 23.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 was granted conditional bail
by the Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that he has to take oath as MLA.
It is further seen that
against grant of bail to Respondent No. 1, Inspector of Police-Respondent No. 2
filed an application being Crl. O.P. No. 9352 of 2001 on 24.05.2001 for
cancellation of bail with application for stay before the High Court. On the same
day, vacation Judge of the High Court stayed the order of grant of bail to
Respondent No. 1 till 29.05.2001 on the ground that victim, namely, David is in
serious condition and the accused Respondent No. 1 is in police custody. By pointing
out that the information furnished by Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit filed
in support of the application for stay of the order of grant of bail regarding
his police custody is false, Respondent No. 1 filed a counter affidavit praying
for vacation of the stay granted by the High Court. On 29.05.2001, Respondent
No. 2 filed his reply affidavit submitting that on 23.05.2001 application
seeking police custody of other 8 accused were made and in the affidavit filed
in support of the petition to cancel the bail, by oversight, it was mentioned that
police custody was also obtained in respect of the Respondent No. 1. He also
conveyed to the court that it is a mistake by oversight and the same is neither
willful nor wanton. On going through the material placed, the learned Single
Judge, by order dated 30.05.2001, dismissed Crl. O.P. No. 9352 of 2001 filed by
Respondent No. 2 to cancel the bail granted to the first respondent by the
Sessions Judge.
16.
The
Division Bench, based on the materials placed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 concluded
that Respondent No. 2 has filed a false affidavit knowing well the contents of the
same are false in order to mislead the court for preventing the petitioner
therein, an MLA, from coming out of the jail thereby restrained him from attending
the Assembly. Though Respondent No. 2 filed Crl. Appeal No. 1500 of 2004, the
same was dismissed by this Court on 05.01.2005. While dismissing the appeal of
Respondent No. 2, this Court made the following observation which is relevant
and is reproduced hereunder: "Heard learned counsel for the appellant. It has
been pointed out that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Police has been admitted
by this Court. In our view, the case of the Commissioner of Police stands entirely
on a different footing. So far as the appellant is concerned, we do not find
any merit in his appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."
17.
The
Division Bench, by the impugned order, proceeded on the fact that the Commissioner
of Police-appellant herein was aware of the arrest of Respondent No. 1 and also
of the fact that as an elected MLA because of the wrong information by Respondent
No. 2, the High Court stayed the order of bail and he was prevented from
assuming office as MLA and dealt with the matter and finally convicted him
under Section 2(c) of the Act. It is the definite stand of the appellant that he
was never consulted by the subordinate police officers before filing of the
application for cancellation of bail and he was not aware of the contents of the
said affidavit and as such he was not responsible. It is also his claim that when
the incorrect statement made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition
was brought to his notice by Mr. Christopher Nelson, Deputy Commissioner of
Police on 28.05.2001, he directed him to give instruction to Respondent No. 2 to
file a proper affidavit and as such, he was never a party to the said false affidavit
and, therefore, he is not liable for contempt.
18.
It
is seen from the written statement made by the appellant before the High Court that
he was informed about the arrest of MLA-Respondent No. 1 and the same has been
conveyed to the Speaker as well as the Chief Secretary. It is the stand of the Division
Bench that the Commissioner of Police must have been informed by the subordinate
Police Officers not only about the arrest of Respondent No. 1 but also his
release by the Sessions Judge to enable him to inform the Speaker and the Government.
However, according to the Division Bench, the Commissioner did not clearly indicate
either in the counter affidavit or in the written statement that he was
informed about the bail order passed by the Sessions Judge on 23.05.2001. The
High Court has also referred to the general powers of the Commissioner of
Police with reference to certain standing orders issued by the Government. There
is no dispute that the Commissioner of Police being Head of the Police Force of
the City, if he comes across the arrest/release of an elected MLA, he is duty
bound to inform the Speaker as well as the Government. However, it is his definite
case and asserted that he was not aware of the information furnished by Respondent
No. 2 for cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Judge and the ultimate stay
order passed by the High Court.
19.
In
order to refute the claim of the Commissioner of Police, the Division Bench heavily
relied on the presence of K. Anthonisamy, Assistant Commissioner of Police and C.
Chandrasekar, Deputy Commissioner of Police in the office of the Public Prosecutor
along with Respondent No. 2 who filed an affidavit praying for cancellation of
the bail. It is true that both Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy
Commissioner of Police in their respective affidavits admitted their presence
in the office of the Public Prosecutor and their interaction with one Mr. Raja,
the then government counsel. It is relevant to refer the information furnished
in the form of an affidavit dated 04.04.2003 by Christopher Nelson. According
to him, he joined as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Triplicane, District
Chennai City on 26.05.2001. He asserted that he was not aware of the details of
the case in question prior to 26.05.2001.
The last two 18paragraphs,
namely, paras 6 and 7 of his affidavit filed before the Division Bench are
relevant which read thus: "6. I respectfully state that Thiru K. Antony
Samy, who was then Assistant Commissioner of Police, (Law & Order), Kilpauk
Range, Chennai-7 informed me on 28052001, that the aforesaid Parithi Ilamvazhuthi
had filed a counter affidavit before the Hon'ble High Court, seeking to reject the
application of cancellation of bail on the ground that some incorrect information
was filed by the first respondent I was further informed that in the affidavit filed
by the first respondent seeking cancellation of bail on 24.05.2001. It has been
stated that for granting police custody the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate by his order
dated 23.052001 had directed that some accused to be produced on 28.052001. 7 I,
respectfully submit that on the very same day, I informed the commissioner of Police,
the second respondent about the allegations of mistake in the affidavit filed by
the investigation officer, the first respondent herein, I was directed by the second
respondent herein to instruct the Assistant Commissioner of Police to file a fresh
affidavit, if necessary before the High Court, explaining the alleged mistake in
the affidavit filed by the first respondent earlier.
In compliance thereof,
I instructed Thiru Antony Samy, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law &
Order, Kilpauk Range, to see that a proper affidavit is filed by the inspector concerned
before the Hon'ble High Court, explaining the circumstances under which alleged
mistake appeared in the affidavit filed earlier by him. Accordingly, such an
affidavit was filed before the Hon'ble High Court on 29.052001."It is clear
at least from para 7 that when the information relating to making wrong statement
at the instance of Respondent No. 2 was brought to the notice of the 19Commissioner
of Police, he directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to instruct the
Assistant Commissioner of Police and Inspector of Police to file fresh affidavit
explaining the alleged mistake in the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2
earlier.
It is also seen that pursuant
to the said direction of the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of
Police instructed one K. Anthonisamy, Assistant Commissioner of Police to see that
proper affidavit is filed by the Inspector concerned before the High Court
explaining the circumstances under which the mistake appeared in the affidavit filed
on earlier occasion. Pursuant to the notice by the Division Bench of the High
Court, C. Chandrasekar, Deputy Commissioner of Police at Triplicane also filed
an affidavit to the effect that after knowing the grant of bail by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Chennai releasing Respondent No. 1 after considering
seriousness of the case and after discussion with "superior officers"
it has been decided to move an application for cancellation of the bail in the
High Court.
The Division Bench
relying on the statement of the above officer concluded that the Commissioner of
Police was consulted and it was he who 20instructed the subordinate Police Officers
to move an application for stay of grant of bail. Though in para 4, the
deponent of the affidavit, namely, C. Chandrasekar has mentioned that "after
discussion with superior officers" it is not clear whether he consulted
the Commissioner of Police i.e. appellant herein on the relevant issue.
20.
K.
Anthonisamy, Deputy Commissioner of Police, CBCID, Chennai Range who was working
as an Assistant Commissioner of Police at Kilpauk Chennai during the relevant
period also swore an affidavit on 24.09.2004. In para 4, he also mentioned that
after discussion with "superior officers" and on instructions, it was
decided to file an application for cancellation of bail in the High Court. Here
again, the Division Bench has concluded that the Commissioner of Police ought to
have been consulted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and only with his
knowledge petition was filed for cancellation of bail.
The above averment in
para 4 merely mentions discussion with "superior officers" and there is
no specific reference to the Commissioner of Police who is the Head of the
Police Force in the Chennai City. 21In the same way, in para 5 also, the
deponent of the affidavit has mentioned that after the grant of stay by the
High Court, he intimated the development to his superior officers. Here again, he
has not specifically informed the court that he had intimated to the Commissioner
of Police. Like Mr. Nelson, Deputy Commissioner of Police, he also informed the
court that on coming to know the discrepancy in the affidavit dated 24.05.2001 filed
by the Inspector of Police for cancellation of the bail, he was directed by the
Commissioner of Police to rectify the discrepancy immediately. Accordingly, Respondent
No. 2 filed the reply affidavit narrating all the facts on 29.05.2001.
21.
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.
It is brought to our
notice that at the relevant time i.e. in 2001, the office of the Commissioner
of Police was headed by him and there were 4 Joint Commisioners of Police, 15 Deputy
Commissioners of Police, 64 Assistant Commissioners of Police besides 235 Inspectors
of Police including SHOs of 83 Police Stations, 6 out posts and under whom
there were 803 Sub-Inspectors of police and Spl. Sub-Inspectors and 9665 Head Constables
and Police Constables. It is further brought to our notice that the City of
Chennai is divided into six districts and each one of them is headed by Deputy Commissioner
of Police of the rank of Superintendent of Police. It is also clear that when the
information about mentioning wrong statement in the affidavit filed by Respondent
No. 2 against the grant of bail order was brought to the notice of the appellant
on 28.05.2001 by Deputy Commissioner of Police, namely, Christopher Nelson, the
appellant herein immediately asked him to direct Respondent No.2 to file proper
affidavit before the High Court and clarify the matter by placing proper facts.
It is also clear from
the affidavit of the government counsel E. Raja that he himself drafted the affidavit
purely on the instructions of Respondent No. 2 and that the appellant herein had
no personal knowledge nor did he instruct the counsel to prepare affidavit or petition
to move for cancellation of the bail. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Ganguli,
learned senior counsel for the appellant, in the later part of the order dated
20.06.2001, the then Division Bench ordered notice to the Commissioner of
Police (the appellant herein) seeking an explanation about the serious allegations
made by Respondent No. 1 in para 12 of the contempt petition. Pursuant to the same,
the appellant filed counter affidavit setting out hierarchy of officials
functioning under the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, the circumstances
under which he was informed about the incorrect affidavit filed by Respondent
No. 2 in the case and the directions issued by him to correct the mistake in
the proceedings relating to the cancellation of bail of Respondent No. 1.
We have already pointed
out that the author of the affidavit, namely, Respondent No. 2 has not stated
that it was filed under the instructions of the appellant herein, in fact, this
fact was accepted by the Division Bench. As a matter of fact, Respondent No. 2 has
specifically denied the allegation that the application for cancellation of
bail was moved under the direction, supervision and knowledge of the appellant.
The two officers, namely, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner
of Police without specifying the name of Commissioner of Police have merely
mentioned that they had consulted their "superior officers" before
filing the application for cancellation of bail.
22.
Apart
from specific information in the form of an affidavit highlighting his stand before
the Division Bench which dealt with the contempt petition, the appellant had also
tendered unconditional apology which was not even referred to before passing orders
sentencing the appellant herein to imprisonment. 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 25direction 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.
23.
We
have already pointed out that while dealing with criminal contempt in terms of Section
2(c) of the Act, strict procedures are to be adhered. In a series of decisions,
this Court has held that jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for contempt as also
the jurisdiction to punish for contempt are discretionary with the court. Contempt
generally and criminal contempt certainly is a matter between the court and the
alleged contemnor. No one can compel or demand as of right initiation of proceedings
for contempt. 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 26brought 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) 3 SCC 171] 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.
24.
We
have already noted that Rajendra Kumar, Inspector of Police, (L&O), G-1,
Vepery Police Station, Chennai-7 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.
25.
In
view of the above discussion and conclusion, the order of the High Court convicting
the appellant under Section 2(c) of the Act and sentencing him under Section 12
to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days is set aside. The appeal is
allowed.
.................................................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
.................................................J.
(H.L. GOKHALE)
NEW
DELHI;
APRIL
15, 2011.
Back
Pages: 1 2
