1996 (4) TMI 120 - SC - Customs

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case an appeal is maintainable against an order dropping the proceeding for contempt? Held that - So far as the facts of the present case are concerned the learned Judges having passed an order directing that a complaint be lodged against the respondents thought it proper not to pursue the proceeding for contempt against them. No appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act is maintainable. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that such an order requires to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136. The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against dropping of contempt proceeding.
2. Maintainability of appeal under Section 19 of the Act.
3. Nature of contempt proceedings and appeal rights.
4. Remedies available in cases of dropped contempt proceedings.
5. Jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the State of Maharashtra to set aside an order dropping a contempt proceeding initiated against the respondents by the High Court of Bombay. The Customs Department alleged that the respondents had filed a false claim for a refund based on forged documents. The High Court directed a complaint to be filed against the respondents but decided not to pursue contempt proceedings. The State contended that the contempt proceeding should not have been dropped.

2. The primary issue was the maintainability of an appeal against an order dropping a contempt proceeding. The Court examined Section 19 of the Act, which specifies the appeal process in contempt cases. It was clarified that an appeal lies from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The Court emphasized that an appeal is only maintainable if the High Court passes an order in the context of punishing for contempt.

3. Contempt proceedings are not disputes between parties but involve the court and the alleged contemnor. The Court clarified that the party informing the court of contempt acts as an assistant to uphold the court's dignity. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted that no appeal lies against an order dropping contempt proceedings as it does not fall within the jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The jurisdiction of the High Court is to punish, and when no punishment is imposed, no appeal is maintainable.

4. While no appeal is maintainable against dropping contempt proceedings, the Court noted that remedies exist under Article 136 of the Constitution. In suitable cases, the Supreme Court can set aside orders where contempt proceedings should have been initiated. The Court emphasized the importance of exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 in the interest of justice, providing a remedy in cases where contempt proceedings are dropped.

5. Considering the specific case, where a complaint was directed against the respondents but contempt proceedings were not pursued, the Court held that no appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act was maintainable. The Court concluded that the order did not warrant interference under Article 136 jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.