1994 (12) TMI 143 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant, Sukumar Mukhopadhyay, committed contempt by not supplying the documents to T.D. Karamchandani as directed by the court.
2. Whether the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant deliberately disobeyed the court's order was correct.
3. Whether the procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge was just and unbiased.
4. Whether the delay in delivering the judgment affected the outcome of the case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the appellant, Sukumar Mukhopadhyay, committed contempt by not supplying the documents to T.D. Karamchandani as directed by the court:
The appellant was convicted for contempt under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act for not supplying the documents to T.D. Karamchandani. The High Court had directed the Customs Department to provide inspection and supply copies of the documents demanded by Karamchandani. Despite the order, the documents were not supplied within the specified time. However, the appellant argued that he had permitted inspection of the documents, which was the substantial demand, and thus did not deliberately disobey the court's order.

2. Whether the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant deliberately disobeyed the court's order was correct:
The learned Single Judge found the appellant guilty of wilful disobedience of the court's order. The High Court, however, disagreed with this finding. The court noted that the appellant had allowed inspection of the documents within the stipulated time, which was the principal demand. The non-supply of copies of the documents was considered a subterfuge by the deceased to support the contempt application. The court concluded that the appellant did not deliberately disobey the order, as he had permitted inspection, which allowed the deceased to copy out the documents.

3. Whether the procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge was just and unbiased:
The High Court criticized the procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge, stating that it was unjust and biased. The appellant had been cross-examined for 13 days, during which 230 questions were put to him. The court inferred that the intervention was unjustified and amounted to harassment. The High Court emphasized that the court should not be at cross purposes with the contemner and punish him without deliberate disobedience.

4. Whether the delay in delivering the judgment affected the outcome of the case:
The High Court noted that the learned Single Judge delivered the judgment holding the appellant guilty of disobedience after 4 years. The court expressed concern that withholding judgment for such a long time, when nothing much was to be done, shakes the confidence of the public in the judicial system. The delay was seen as a factor that affected the fairness of the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the appellant did not commit contempt as he had complied with the order by granting inspection of the records within the stipulated time. The court also found that the learned Single Judge's finding of deliberate disobedience was erroneous. The procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge was criticized as unjust and biased, and the delay in delivering the judgment was seen as detrimental to the case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was not held guilty of contempt.