9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the act of the respondent constituted an offence under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court was ousted by Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the act of the respondent constituted an offence under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The primary issue was whether the respondent's actions, particularly the aspersions made in the transfer application and affidavit, amounted to an offence under Section 228 of the IPC. Section 228 IPC addresses the intentional insult or interruption to a public servant while in any stage of a judicial proceeding. The High Court believed that the respondent's actions were intended to insult the Magistrate, thereby constituting an offence under Section 228 IPC. The High Court's view was that the application and affidavit contained direct allegations of partiality and corruption against the Magistrate, which were submitted while the Magistrate was sitting as a court. This led the High Court to conclude that the act fell within the purview of Section 228 IPC, precluding the High Court from taking action for contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act. However, the Supreme Court found that the aspersions made by the respondent went beyond a mere personal insult to the Magistrate. The allegations included claims of conspiracy and bribery, which, if taken at face value, scandalized the court and impaired the administration of justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that such actions create distrust in the public mind and impair confidence in the judiciary, thus constituting something more than an offence under Section 228 IPC. 2. Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court was ousted by Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952: Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, states that the High Court shall not 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 IPC. The High Court interpreted this provision to mean that since the respondent's actions constituted an offence under Section 228 IPC, the High Court's jurisdiction was ousted. The High Court relied on previous decisions, including Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. The State of Madras and Brahma Prakash Sharma v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, to support its view. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this interpretation. It clarified that Section 3(2) of the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court only in cases where the acts alleged to constitute contempt are punishable as contempt under specific provisions of the IPC, and not merely because they amount to offences of other descriptions under the IPC. The Supreme Court pointed out that the aspersions made by the respondent were much more than a mere insult and amounted to scandalizing the court, which is not covered by Section 228 IPC. The Supreme Court concluded that the aspersions, by creating distrust in the public mind and impairing confidence in the judiciary, constituted an act of scandalizing the court rather than a mere intentional insult. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court was not ousted by Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and holding that the High Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the act complained of. The case was remanded to the High Court for a decision on merits in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for expeditious handling given the passage of time since the act was committed in 1953.
|
