9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (8) TMI 1239 - SC - Indian LawsContempt of Court - whether in view of the provisions of section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 the Special Court was prohibited from taking any action as the Court had initiated proceedings of contempt after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt was alleged to have been committed? Held that - Appeal dismissed the impugned judgment of the special court is affirmed. The provisions of section 17 are applicable in the present case. The fraud perpetuated by the appellant was unearthed only on the custodian receiving information from the Income-tax Department vide their letter of 5-5-1998. On becoming aware of the fraud application for initiating contempt proceedings was filed on 18-6-1998 well within the period of limitation prescribed by section 20. It is on this application that the special court by its order of 9-4-1999 directed the application to be treated as a show-cause notice to the appellant to punish him for contempt. In view of the abovestated facts and in the light of the discussion regarding the correct interpretation of section 20 it follows that the action taken by the special court to punish the appellant for contempt was valid. The special court has only faulted in being unduly lenient in awarding the sentence. We do not think it is necessary under the circumstances to examine the finding of the special court that this was a continuing wrong or contempt and therefore action for contempt was not barred by section 20.
Issues Involved:
1. Civil Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. Limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3. Jurisdiction and powers of the Special Court under the Special Court Act, 1992. 4. Application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to contempt proceedings. 5. Interpretation of "initiation of proceedings" for contempt. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Civil Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: The appellant was held to have committed civil contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Special Court found that despite an order restraining the appellant from alienating or transferring his assets, he had set up benami companies and transferred assets, thereby violating the court's order. The Special Court sentenced the appellant to one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000. 2. Limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: The appellant argued that the contempt proceedings were barred by limitation as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which prohibits courts from initiating contempt proceedings after one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. The Supreme Court examined whether the proceedings were initiated within the one-year limitation period. 3. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Special Court under the Special Court Act, 1992: The Special Court, constituted under the Special Court Act, 1992, has the same powers as a High Court in respect of contempt of itself. This includes the power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to punish for contempt. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Special Court's jurisdiction and powers to punish for contempt are akin to those of a High Court. 4. Application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to Contempt Proceedings: Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, meaning that the provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are applicable unless expressly excluded. Section 17 of the Limitation Act, which deals with the extension of the period of limitation in cases of fraud, was found applicable. The fraud by the appellant was discovered by the Custodian only upon receiving information from the Income-tax Department, thus extending the limitation period. 5. Interpretation of "Initiation of Proceedings" for Contempt: The Supreme Court clarified that proceedings for contempt are initiated either by the filing of an application or by the court issuing a notice suo motu. The Court held that the filing of an application within the limitation period is sufficient to initiate proceedings. The Court rejected the narrow interpretation that initiation occurs only when the court issues a show-cause notice after forming a prima facie opinion of contempt. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the Special Court's judgment, affirming that the contempt proceedings were initiated within the permissible period of limitation. The appellant was directed to surrender and serve the sentence awarded by the Special Court. The Court emphasized the need to interpret Section 20 in a manner that avoids anomalies and ensures that contemnors cannot evade punishment due to procedural delays.
|
