Criminal Appeal No(s.) 339 with 340, 345, 346, 358, 362, 388, 390 to 400 of 2007. Case: Anup Bhushan Vohra Vs The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Calcut. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No(s.) 339 with 340, 345, 346, 358, 362, 388, 390 to 400 of 2007 |
| Counsel | For Appearing Parties: Mukul Rohtagi, Kalyan Bandopadhyay, R. Venkataramani, Pradip Kr. Ghosh, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advs., Abhijit Sen Gupta, B.P. Yadav, Abhijit Bhattacharya, P.C. Sen, Aanchal Yadav, Binu Tamta, Joydeep Mazumdar, Rohit Dutta, Alto K. Joseph, Ranjan Kumar, Chiranjan Addey, Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma, Rupesh Kumar, Raja ... |
| Judges | P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ. |
| Issue | Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2, 12, 12(1), 19; Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975 |
| Citation | JT 2011 (10) SC 606 , 2011 (10) SCALE 561, 2012 CriLJ 636 |
| Judgement Date | September 16, 2011 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
P. Sathasivam, J.
-
These appeals, under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), are filed against the common judgment and order dated 02.03.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Suo Moto Contempt Motion being Crl. C.P. No. 1 of 2007 with C.R.R. No. 187 of 2007 whereby the High Court found all the Appellants guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine within a period of one month, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
-
Brief facts:
-
A Committee was constituted by some local persons, who were active in public life, along with lawyers at Jalpaiguri named "Circuit Bench `O' Sarbik Unnayan Dabi Adyay Samannya Committee, Jalpaiguri" (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee"). The Committee had passed a resolution for the formation of a High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and in order to achieve the said purpose to stage Satyagrah in front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. The Members of the Committee put their resolution into action on 15.12.2006 and started agitation outside the main gate of the District Court premises and put up a rostrum there on which a number of persons started sitting in Satyagrah. They prevented the Judicial Officers including the District Judge, Jalpaiguri to enter into the Court premises from that day. In order to overcome the said situation, the District Judge drew attention of such fact to the Inspector-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri for extending police help, but no action was taken. Subsequently, the District Judge brought the matter to the notice of the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta for taking necessary steps.
-
After taking note of the situation, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, the then Chief Justice of the High Court, instructed the District Judge through the Registrar General to seek necessary help and protection from the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri to take immediate steps so that the Judicial Officers could enter the Court premises and attend the judicial work. The District Judge conveyed the said decision of the High Court to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri but failed to get any response from him. Subsequently, he approached the District Magistrate but no action was taken from his end also. Failing to get any response either from the Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, the District Judge sent a note to the then Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court who gave direction over phone to the Director General of Police to take effective steps without any further delay. The Director General of Police gave assurance that he would take up the matter with the Home Secretary, Government of West Bengal and also suggested the Registrar General to inform the District Judge to write to the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri to take steps for ensuring proper functioning of the Court with a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri. On 12.01.2007, the District Judge again wrote to the District Magistrate. In spite of that, no effective development had taken place and the Judicial Officers and the District Judge were unable to enter the court building.
-
In view of the above situation, the District Judge sent a Fax message to the Registrar General of the High Court requesting him to take appropriate instructions and directions. On the basis of the said information, on 15.01.2007, the then Acting Chief Justice of the High Court sitting in a Bench issued two Suo Motu Rules of Contempt, one, against the 16 persons actively associated with the aforesaid Committee to show cause as to why they are creating impediments in functioning of the judiciary in the District Court by obstructing Judicial Officers from entering into the Court premises and the other upon the Director General of Police, Government of West Bengal, the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri and the Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri to show cause as to why they remained silent spectators in spite of repeated directions.
-
On the same day, the Committee withdrew the Satyagrah and removed the rostrum and cleared the entry gate. In response to the Rules, the Appellants herein filed their affidavits before the High Court. After examining the appellants herein, the High Court, by impugned judgment dated 02.03.2007, imposed simple imprisonment for a term of six months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine within a period of one month, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the Appellants/contemnors have filed these appeals under Section 19 of the Act.
-
-
Heard M/s Mukul Rohtagi, Kalyan Bandopadhyay, R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel, P.C. Sen, Tara Chandra Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Pradip Kr. Ghosh and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the Respondent-High Court.
-
Since we are going to dispose of all the 18 appeals by this judgment, the following details pertaining to these appeals are relevant:
S. No.
Name
Age
Profession
Case Number
(Crl. Appeal)
1.
Sri Mukulesh Sanyal (Dead)
84
Editor of a local weekly
No. 395/2007
2.
Sri Chitta Dey
84
Trade unionist
No. 390/2007
3.
Sri Benoy Kanta Bhowmic
83
Advocate
No. 394/2007
4.
Sri Samarendra Prosad Biswas
78
Business
No. 396/2007
5.
Smt. Pratima Bagchi (Dead)
74
Teacher (Retd.)
No. 399/2007
6.
Sri Jiten Das
73
Ex. M.P. (Retd. Professor)
No. 362/2007
7.
Sri Sadhan Bose
73
Business
No. 398/2007
8.
Sri Amal Roy
64
Political Worker
No. 392/2007
9.
Sri Debaprasad Roy
63
M.L.A.
No. 358/2007
10.
Sri Anup Bhushan Vohra
63
DGP, (D.G.) (Retd.)
W.B. No. 339/2007
11.
Sri Prasanta Chandra
58
Dy. (Inspector in Charge) Murshidabad
S.P., No. 346/2007
12.
Sri Subhas Kumar Dutta
57
Teacher
No. 393/2007
13.
Sri Rabindra Narayan Chowdhury
57
Business
No. 388/2007
14.
Sri Somnath Pal
46
Business
No. 397/2007
15.
Sri Sanjoy Chakraborty
44
Secretary of an NGO
No. 391/2007
16.
Sri Prabal Raha
40
Social Worker
No. 345/2007
17.
Sri Tripurari (S.P.)
39
D.C. Central
No. 340/2007
18.
Sri R. Ranjit
38
D.M., Jalpaiguri, W.B.
No. 340/2007
-
Since all the Appellants were proceeded for criminal contempt under the Act, it is useful to refer the relevant provisions applicable for disposal of these appeals. Section 2 of the Act defines "criminal contempt" which reads as under:
-
(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, or 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;
Section 12 of the Act provides punishment for contempt of court. The procedure to be followed has been dealt with in the Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975. It is settled law that the law of contempt must be strictly interpreted and complied with before any person can be committed for contempt.
-
In Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and Anr. AIR 2011 SC 1645: (2011) 5 SCC 496, this Court, while considering the criminal contempt held that the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge and further held that the punishment cannot be imposed on mere probabilities and the court can not punish the alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and surmises. How the criminal contempt has to be proceeded with has been explained in para 9, which read as follows:
-
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 imposing 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.
In para 23, it was further held that 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.
-
With this background, let us analyse whether the appellants have committed criminal contempt in terms of Section 2 of the Act and whether the High Court is justified in imposing simple imprisonment for a term of six months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
-
The impugned order of the Division Bench shows that these Appellants were punished for criminal contempt not only on the ground that they prevented the Judicial Officers including the District Judge and other staff members from entering into the District Court at Jalpaiguri, but also on the ground of alleged serious lapses/inaction on their part. It is useful to refer the findings recorded by the Division Bench regarding the role and part played by the Appellants which are as under:
We, therefore, unhesitantly come to the conclusion that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial