2017 (9) TMI 119 - HC - Income Tax

Guilty of criminal contempt of court - making allegation against the revenue counsel - failure to prove its allegations - Held that - After the respondent s intervention application was rejected on 23.09.2008, his continued engagement in communication with the standing counsel for levelling allegations against them, addressing e-mail directly to this Court and placing on record an affidavit detailing the allegations, even after stating that he will withdraw them vis-a-vis the standing counsel but would nevertheless press the same allegations elsewhere constitutes criminal contempt of court. Mr. Gupta has levelled irresponsible and serious allegations against the counsel for the Revenue, including an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking to register a case against the standing counsel for the Revenue as recorded in the order dated 03.03.2015. The respondent has chosen to represent these proceedings in person despite having been given the assistance of a Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae. The respondent has resiled from his various undertakings. He fully understands the import of these proceedings and is open to the consequences of the same. The actions of the respondent may well have been impelled by his conviction of self-righteousness, however, such delusion as may be, would not mitigate the ill-effects of his deliberate actions which the Court finds to be contumacious. He would, therefore, have to be held responsible for the same. The Court is of the view that the conduct of the respondent, insofar as he has leveled baseless allegations against counsel who appeared and assisted the Court and as well as for the other reasons specified in the Show Cause Notice, tantamount to substantial interference in the administration of justice. In the circumstances, the respondent Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta is found guilty of criminal contempt of court. He is sentenced to simple imprisonment of one week along with a fine of ₹ 2000/-. The fine shall be deposited within one week from today in this Court in the name of Registrar General, failing which he will undergo further simple imprisonment for seven days. In view of the fact that the contemnor has stated that he will prefer an appeal against the sentence, the same is suspended for 60 days, in order to enable the contemnor to prefer a statutory appeal, in accordance with law. If the order is not modified, the same shall come into effect after 60 days from today and the contemnor shall be taken into custody and sent to Tihar Jail to undergo the sentence imposed herein. A copy of this order has been provided to the contemnor, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conduct of the respondent leading to criminal contempt proceedings.
2. Allegations against the counsel for the Revenue and their impact.
3. Procedural history and respondent's behavior in court.
4. Legal principles and judgments cited regarding contempt of court.
5. Final judgment and sentencing.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conduct of the respondent leading to criminal contempt proceedings:
The case concerns the conduct of the respondent, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, against whom criminal contempt proceedings were initiated. The respondent sent an email to the counsel for the Revenue, leveling several allegations, which he later assured the court he would withdraw. Despite this assurance, he continued to send detailed communications to the court and filed an affidavit with further allegations. This behavior was deemed to prima facie amount to criminal contempt, as it sought to prejudice and interfere with the due course of proceedings.

2. Allegations against the counsel for the Revenue and their impact:
The respondent accused the counsel for the Revenue of collusion with the assessee and deliberately weakening the department's case. These allegations were reiterated in various affidavits and communications, despite the respondent's earlier assurances to withdraw them. The court noted that such behavior interfered with the administration of justice and constituted criminal contempt. The respondent's actions led to two standing counsels recusing themselves from the matter, further highlighting the disruptive impact of his conduct.

3. Procedural history and respondent's behavior in court:
The respondent was given multiple opportunities to file his reply and was even offered legal assistance, which he declined. His conduct in court was described as intemperate and obstructive, leading to several applications being dismissed with costs. The court noted that the respondent's persistent conduct and repeated resiling from his undertakings amounted to a wanton disregard of court procedure and a wastage of judicial time.

4. Legal principles and judgments cited regarding contempt of court:
The court cited several judgments to underscore the gravity of the respondent's actions. In *H. Syama Sundara Rao vs UOI & Ors.*, it was held that casting aspersions and extending threats to an advocate amounts to contempt of court. Similarly, in *Charanlal Sahu vs UOI & Anr.*, the Supreme Court directed contempt proceedings against a petitioner who indulged in mud-slinging against advocates and constitutional institutions. These judgments emphasize that any conduct that tends to interfere with the administration of justice or embarrass an advocate in the discharge of their duties constitutes contempt of court.

5. Final judgment and sentencing:
The court found the respondent guilty of criminal contempt of court, noting that his actions amounted to substantial interference in the administration of justice. The respondent was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one week and a fine of ?2000/-. The sentence was suspended for 60 days to allow the respondent to appeal. If the order is not modified, the respondent will be taken into custody and sent to Tihar Jail to serve the sentence.

In conclusion, the respondent's persistent and baseless allegations against the counsel for the Revenue, despite multiple opportunities to withdraw them, were deemed to constitute criminal contempt of court, leading to his conviction and sentencing.