9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 1481 - SC - Indian LawsContempt proceedings - order of sentence against the appellant / Commissioner of police - Allegation that Respondent No. 2 (IO) made Incorrect/false statement for cancellation of bail in the knowledge of Appellant - Offence punishable u/s 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (the Act) - Respondent No. 1 was elected as Member of Legislative Assembly ( MLA ) - Large scale violence and several attempts of booth capturing were reported on the day of election - HELD THAT - 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. The analysis of affidavits of the Inspector of Police Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police show that there is no acceptable material that the affidavit containing wrong information filed by Respondent No. 2 for cancellation of bail and stay of bail order was made at the instance of the Commissioner of Police. We have already pointed out that the appellant has assumed charge as the Commissioner of Police only on 17.05.2001 i.e. after formation of the new government. The violence in respect of election that took place on 10.05.2001 particularly the incident relating to Respondent No. 1 was one week before his taking over charge as Commissioner of Police. 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 direction 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. 2 before the High Court. We have pointed out that while dealing with criminal contempt in terms of Section 2(c) of the Act strict procedures are to be adhered. 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 brought to the notice of the court. It is thereafter for the court to act on such information or not. Vide Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. D.K. Mittal 2000 (2) TMI 831 - SUPREME COURT Further Section 15 of the Act as well as the Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules insist that particularly for initiation of criminal contempt consent of the Advocate General is required. 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. 1. We have already noted that (Respondent No. 2) Inspector of Police who made an incorrect/false statement for cancellation of bail has been rightly punished by the Division Bench of the High Court and this Court affirmed the same by dismissing his special leave petition. Hence the order of the HC convicting the appellant u/s 2(c) and sentencing him u/s 12 of the Act to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the contempt charges under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. Compliance with procedural rules for initiating contempt proceedings. 3. Requirement of Advocate General's consent for initiating criminal contempt. 4. Liability of the Commissioner of Police for the false affidavit filed by a subordinate officer. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Contempt Charges under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: The High Court had held the respondents guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Act, which defines criminal contempt as any act that scandalizes the court, prejudices judicial proceedings, or obstructs the administration of justice. The Division Bench concluded that the false affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 led to the stay of the bail order, thereby preventing an MLA from attending the Assembly. 2. Compliance with Procedural Rules for Initiating Contempt Proceedings: The contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature require strict adherence to procedural rules. The appellant argued that the Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules, 1975, particularly Rules 4 and 8, were not complied with. The Court emphasized that the burden and standard of proof in contempt proceedings are the same as in criminal cases, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to prescribed procedures. 3. Requirement of Advocate General's Consent for Initiating Criminal Contempt: Section 15 of the Act mandates that criminal contempt can only be initiated with the consent of the Advocate General. The appellant argued that the contempt proceedings were initiated without such consent, rendering them non-maintainable. The Court cited precedents, including State of Kerala vs. M.S. Mani and Bal Thackrey vs. Harish Pimpalkhute, which held that the absence of the Advocate General's consent is fatal to the proceedings. However, in exceptional cases with far-reaching implications on the administration of justice, the Court can proceed without such consent, as seen in Amicus Curiae vs. Prashant Bhushan. 4. Liability of the Commissioner of Police for the False Affidavit Filed by a Subordinate Officer: The High Court held the Commissioner of Police liable, assuming he had knowledge of the false affidavit. However, the Commissioner contended that he was not consulted before the affidavit was filed and was unaware of its contents. The Court found no direct evidence that the Commissioner instructed or was aware of the false affidavit. The affidavits of subordinate officers only mentioned consulting "superior officers" without specifically implicating the Commissioner. The Commissioner's immediate action to correct the mistake upon learning about it further supported his defense. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order convicting the Commissioner of Police under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentencing him to seven days of simple imprisonment. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the necessity of strict procedural adherence and the lack of direct evidence implicating the Commissioner.
|
