2004 (4) TMI 606 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act - suo motu cognizance of contempt - act of attacking in a pre-planned and calculated manner - HELD THAT - We are of the opinion that due reasonable and adequate opportunity was afforded to the appellants to defend themselves and put forth their point of view. The High Court has taken into consideration the entire evidence and material available on the record including the evidence produced by the contemners. It was not necessary for the High Court to discuss each and every affidavit individually. Out of 26 persons named only 9 have been convicted by the High Court. Since the procedure adopted was summary the High Court has taken care not to convict a person unless direct evidence and/or circumstances with sufficient corroborative material doubtless fastening guilt on the contemners who have been punished was available. The High Court found only those contemners guilty against whom the element of doubt was completely eliminated. Affidavit evidence if based on hearsay has been excluded. Contemners against whom there was single identification were also given the benefit of doubt. The version put forth by the appellants was not accepted as it fell short of proof. High Court has considered the entire evidence on the record while recording a finding of guilt against the appellants. Thus the plea that the High Court did not take into consideration the affidavits of independent witnesses is not tenable. The plea of ali bi taken by the appellants has been negatived by the High Court as the duty charts had been prepared by these officers themselves. None of the superior officers supported their versions. Presence of most of the appellants had been confirmed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge Shri Barai the other two Court officials advocates the reports of Director General of Police and the Superintendent of Police. None of these has any interest in falsely implicating any of the appellants. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals directing the appellants to surrender and serve their sentences. The Court also directed the disciplinary authorities and criminal courts to conclude pending proceedings expeditiously and requested the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna to monitor the proceedings. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining the dignity and authority of the judiciary and condemned the actions of the police officials involved.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. High Court's suo motu cognizance of contempt.
3. Standard of proof and procedural fairness in contempt proceedings.
4. Adequate opportunity for defense.
5. Consideration of affidavits of independent witnesses.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act:
The appellants argued that the High Court's jurisdiction was barred u/s 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act as the alleged contempt constituted an offence u/s 228 IPC. The Court rejected this argument, citing the Constitution Bench decision in *Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. The State of Madras* and *State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Revashankar*, which clarified that the High Court's jurisdiction is not excluded unless the act is punishable as contempt under specific IPC provisions.

2. High Court's suo motu cognizance of contempt:
The appellants contended that the High Court could not take suo motu action for contempt of a subordinate court. The Court dismissed this argument, referencing *S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, Vs. Vinay Chandra Misra*, which held that the High Court retains the power to take suo motu cognizance of criminal contempt of subordinate courts.

3. Standard of proof and procedural fairness in contempt proceedings:
The appellants argued that the standard of proof in criminal contempt should be beyond reasonable doubt and that they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Court noted that the High Court had provided fair and proper opportunities and that the procedure under the Contempt of Courts Act does not require adherence to the Criminal Procedure Code or the Evidence Act. The Court emphasized that the summary procedure adopted was fair and adequate, as affirmed in *In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra*.

4. Adequate opportunity for defense:
The appellants claimed they were not given reasonable and adequate opportunities to defend themselves. The Court found this claim untenable, noting that all material was properly served, and the appellants were given opportunities to file affidavits and produce evidence. The High Court had considered the entire evidence before recording the conviction.

5. Consideration of affidavits of independent witnesses:
The appellants argued that the High Court did not consider affidavits of independent witnesses. The Court rejected this, stating that only those contemners were convicted against whom corroboration from multiple sources was confirmed. The High Court had taken care to ensure that only those against whom the element of doubt was eliminated were convicted.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, directing the appellants to surrender and serve their sentences. The Court also directed the disciplinary authorities and criminal courts to conclude pending proceedings expeditiously and requested the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna to monitor the proceedings. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining the dignity and authority of the judiciary and condemned the actions of the police officials involved.

← Previous Next →