It is also clear that when the information about mentioning wrong statement in the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 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. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Ganguli, learned senior counsel for the appellant, in the later part of the order dated 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.
We have already pointed out that the author of the affidavit, namely, Respondent No. As a matter of fact, Respondent No. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge. Home Judiciary Constitutional Law. Share on Facebook. Share on Twitter. Share on LinkedIn.
Share on Email. Share More. Court : SC Brief : This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 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.
Consent of the Advocate General Join our Whatsapp group. Published in Constitutional Law Views : Report Abuse. Submit Judgment. Subscribe to Judiciary Feed.
Articles Forum Jobs Events. News Experts Feed Top Members. Scorecard Poll Share Files Bookmarks. Member Strength 8,10, and growing.. Get latest updates Submit. Our Network Sites. Lawyersclubindia Search. Whatsapp Groups. LCI Group. Login at Lawyersclubindia. Trouble Logging in? Try following the given steps - 1. Click on the confirmation link and confirm your signup New users who have not received email verification mail click here to verify. Enter User Name.
Enter Password. Kaushik and others. Contempt proceedings — Are not criminal proceedings — Are proceedings of summary nature.
Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association. Civil contempt — Interim order passed by Supreme Court — subsequent action in filing civil suit seeking injunction — Amounts to contempt. Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction and another Cri. Review — Order holding person guilty of contempt cannot be reviewed, Senior Sub-Judge. Dharamsala v. Criminal Contempt — Notice containing allegations and scandalour remarks — Advocate who drafted notice cannot escape liability.
Shamsher Singh Bedi v. Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in respect of the distribution of —. A in the case of a civil proceeding, when it is instituted by the filing of a plaint or otherwise,.
B in the case of a criminal proceeding under the [1] [Code of Criminal Procedure, 5 of ], or any other law —. Criticism of Court when transgresses the limits of fair and bona fide criticism amounts to contempt of court.
Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code 45 of High Court can take action for contempt of subordinate court under Section 2 of Act for defamation of the Judge though the aggrieved officer may have remedies such as Sec.
Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 10 cannot interfere with the complaints filed for disobedience of breach of injunction order temporarily issued during the pendency of a suit.
Shaik Mohiddin v. Contempt petition — Territorial jurisdiction — Petition can be returned for presentation to proper Court. Hari Mohan v. Mittal and another. Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
Ad interim injunction limited to specific period — No extension — No contempt if violation is alleged after expiry of stipulated period. Rathinasabapathy v.
Palaniappa Kandar. Criminal Contempt — newspaper article — Liability of editor extends to all acts committed pertaining to publication. Rather and another v. Dua and others. Illegal confinement during the period when appellant was on anticipatory bail — Act confining to prison not only atro-cious but interfering with due course of justice and amounting to deliberate attempt to obstruct administration of justice — Simple imprisonment of one month awarded for illegal confinement.
Versus State of Rajasthan and Others. Provided further that the court may, if it thinks fit, instead of taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his attendance as aforesaid. Contempt proceedings against Judicial Officers are maintainable. Complaint against presiding officers of subordinate courts when not contempt. Publication of information relating to proceeding in chambers or in camera not contempt except in certain cases.
Other defenses not affected. Act not to imply enlargement of scope of contempt. Power of High Court to punish contempt of subordinate courts. Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction. Punishment for contempt of court. Contempt not punishable in certain cases. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court.
0コメント