9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uoted below : The respondent shall be at liberty to proceed with the impugned enquiry dt. 11th May, 1984 and dt. 21st July, 1984 after supplying the documents asked for by the petitioner. Respondents shall be at liberty to conclude the enquiry but no final order will be passed without the leave of this court. 4. Copy of the order of the High Court was not personally served on the appellant Sukumar Mukhopadhyay. He came to learn the gist of the order of the High Court on 18-8-1984 from two office notes which were placed before him. The first note was of Assistant Collector (Vigilance) dated August 8, 1984 and the second note was of the then Deputy Collector dated 16-8-1984. The contents of the first note was as follows :- An extract to G.O.I. s instruction No. 3 below the Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules placed opposite may kindly be seen. Though it is not incumbent on the part of the Deptt. to permit the accused officer to inspect the documents, on request, however, he may be given the permission to inspect the relevant records. I understand that the court has also directed the Deptt. to allow him to inspect the document. Extension of time as prayed may also be considered. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kumar Mukhopadhyay to be guilty deliberately and having intentionally committed breach of the court s order. The learned Judge found that disobedience was wilful. The documents were not supplied despite knowledge and notice of the stay order dated 6th August, 1984. On this finding, the learned Judge convicted the appellant by the judgment dated 12th July, 1989. The relevant operative portion of the order is reproduced below :- I hold the first contemner guilty of the contempt for not complying with the order passed by this court on 6th August, 1984 intentionally within the time specified by the order. He is convicted accordingly. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, he is detained until the rising of the court. He shall also pay a fine of Rs. 1700/-. Against the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant raised many points in support of the appeal and stated that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant was guilty of having disobeyed the order dated 6th August, 1984 by not supplying the copies of the documents demanded was wrong. 13. We have examined all the papers and the affidavits ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the law has armed the High Court with the power and imposed on it the duty of preventing brevi manu and by summary proceedings any attempt to interfere with the administration of justice but not on any exaggerated notion of the dignity of the court. The power to punish for contempt has been vested in the Judges not for their personal protection only, but for that of the public, whose interest it is that decency and decorum should be preserved in Courts of Justice. Oswald in his book `Contempt of Court at page 9 summaries of law in the following words :- These powers are given to the Judges to keep the course of justice free, powers of great importance to society, for by the exercise of them law and order prevail, those who are interested in wrong are shown that the law is irresistible. It is this obstruction which is called in law contempt, and it has nothing to do with the personal feelings of the Judge, and no Judge would allow his personal feelings to have any weight in the matter. According to my experience, the personal feelings of the Judges have never had the slightest influence in the exercise of those powers entrusted to them for the purpose of supporting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s; (4) where an order for substituted service has been made; (5) where the respondent has evaded service of the order. 20. Another argument of the appellant s counsel which appealed to us to be correct was that where an order of which breach is complained of is ambiguous and is capable of two meanings, being not precise, no proceedings for contempt can be made on the alleged violation of that order - Keshav Gaman v. Bai Rukhaiyabibi and Another, AIR 1958 Bombay 474. 21. We are of the view that in this case the appellant having complied with the order by granting inspection of the records within time stipulated by the order dated 6th August, 1984 did not commit any contempt. We also find substance in the submission that as the copies had been subsequently supplied the finding of the learned Judge holding that the appellant deliberately committed contempt by not giving them to the respondent is sustainable and on that ground also no case against the appellant that he intervented in the conduct of the judicial proceedings is made out. 22. While exercising the powers Conferred by the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court should not be at cross purposes with the contemner and punish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
