9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Constitution read with Contempt of Courts Act, be initiated against incumbents named in the application, and such other persons as this Court may deem fit. A prayer has also been made to direct certain service providers to preserve the e-mails and/or electronic traces thereof. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 15874/2015 has been filed for impleadment of certain incumbents as Respondents. 2. In W.P. (Crl.) No. 204/2011, a prayer has been made to transfer investigation arising out of II-CR No. 3148/2011 registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the then Additional Advocate General of State of Gujarat at Vastrapur P.S., Ahmedabad, Gujarat, Under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, (for short ""the IT Act") to any independent agency like the CBI outside the control of the State Government. Similarly Crl. Misc. Petition No. 15875/2015 for aforesaid directions and for impleadment as Respondents-Crl. Misc. Petition No. 15877/2015 has been filed. 3. In Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 135/2011, the Petitioner has averred that investigation of I-CR No. 149/2011 is required to be transferred to CBI or any other investigating agency/SIT outside the control of the then Chief Minister o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral occasions in 2009 and 2010 by the SIT. The Petitioner has further averred that he had vacationed again in May-June, 2010 with the then AAG along with family. He was again required to access the e-mail account on several occasions. During the period from February to June, 2010, he came across e-mail exchanges which clearly indicated an unholy and illegal complicity between the then AAG and the functionaries of State of Gujarat. The Petitioner has further averred that on 20.9.2010, he briefed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) about the leakage of the testimony before the SIT. He was advised to meet the then Chief Minister to clear the air. In the intervening night of 3rd and 4th November, 2010, the house of the Petitioner's mother was ransacked. The Petitioner had lodged FIR (P-5) at Navrangpura Police Station registered as I-CR. No. 449/2010. Again the incident was repeated on the intervening night of 8th and 9th November, 2010 and a steel almirah which could not be broken open on the earlier occasion, was broken and searched. FIR (P-6) was lodged at Navrangpura Police Station as I-CR No. 456/2010. The Petitioner requested for adequate security cover vide letter dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... medabad) on 18/19.6.2011. 7. The Petitioner then informed Mr. K.D. Panth and Mr. T.C. Yadav about the forthcoming visit of the amicus curiae. The Petitioner suggested to Mr. T.C. Yadav and Mr. K.D. Panth that they may prepare affidavits to be given to amicus curiae on 18.6.2011. The Petitioner submitted that they agreed and requested the Petitioner to arrange for trustworthy advocate who could help them in preparing and affirming the proposed affidavits in strict confidence. Both the witnesses got their affidavits prepared and affirmed on 17.6.2011 and gave them to the Petitioner. On 18.6.2011 the Petitioner met the amicus curiae. Mr. T.C. Yadav also met amicus curiae. However, Mr. K.D. Panth did not turn up. The Petitioner then handed over a copy of the affidavit affirmed by Mr. K.D. Panth to the amicus curiae. The Petitioner came to know on 22.6.2011 that senior police officials pressurized Mr. K.D. Panth and made him to affirm the affidavit before the Executive Magistrate at Gandhinagar negating the earlier affidavit sworn by him before the Notary Public on 17.6.2011. A written complaint was prepared at the behest of Mr. K.D. Panth on the basis of which at 2330 hrs. on 22.6.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years as to the meeting dated 27.2.2002. Other facts have also been denied. In e-mail (P-4) filed by the Petitioner, attachments indicate that it was with respect to Sohrabuddin encounter, the Petitioner has made false suggestions and allegations as to the contents of e-mails and absolutely false allegations against SIT. The Sohrabuddin encounter case was investigated by Gujarat State CID. 10. It is further stated in the reply that the Petitioner is guilty of hacking the e-mail account of the then AAG for which offence Under Section 66 of the IT Act has been registered. Petitioner was leaking information and interacting with media and other vested interest groups. He even attempted to use media card to influence judicial proceedings. The affidavit sent by the Petitioner in SLP (Crl.) No. 1088/2008 was not taken on record. This fact has been suppressed by the Petitioner. He is acting at the behest of rival political party in the State of Gujarat. The State has made serious allegations against the Petitioner and real motives to file the petition in this Court. It has placed on record e-mails sent/received by the Petitioner which indicate that the Petitioner has interacted with the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of main rival political party. The incident is established by way of scientific evidence reflected in chargesheet. He was in Maharashtra from 25.2.2002 to 28.2.2002. He had visited notary/advocate at Bombay (Maharashtra) for the purpose of getting the translated documents notarized/certified. Petitioner has falsely asserted that he accompanied him to the meeting at the residence of the then Chief Minister on 27.2.2002. 14. He had received a call from the Petitioner at 1557 hours and he was asked to meet the Petitioner at 2200 hours at his residence. Petitioner had taken him to President of the Gujarat State rival political party, wherefrom he was taken to the office of the co-accused, Chairman of the Legal Cell of the said party and was permitted to leave early in the morning hours after preparation of affidavit dated 17.6.2011. All the movements are substantiated by the mobile call records and mobile tower locations. Respondent No. 4 has given the statement before the SIT constituted by this Court. The Petitioner is making frivolous contentions. 15. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5-SIT contending that the evidence given by Mr. Bhatt is absolu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to get the property vacated, Mr. Rajpurohit was abducted by the officers of the Gujarat Police from Pali in Rajasthan. The arrest was shown on 2.5.1996. Due to torture of police, Mr. Rajpurohit vacated the premises and handed over possession to the sister of Mr. R.R. Jain, Additional Judge. Mr. Jain was not confirmed as Judge of the Gujarat High Court and repatriated to his original post as City Civil & Sessions Judge and had ultimately retired under suspension. The National Human Rights Commission has taken a serious note of fabrication of the case by the Petitioner under the NDPS Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh on the Government of Gujarat as the monetary relief to Mr. Rajpurohit, Advocate. Gujarat State Vigilance Commission had recommended on 15.7.2002 and 19.10.2006 suspension of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt. However, his suspension was not ordered. Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt did not look after political and communal matters during 2002 Gujarat riots. 17. SIT has further submitted in the counter affidavit that the claim of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt that he was present in meeting convened by the then Chief Minister on the night of 27.2.2002, could not be substantiated during SIT investigation. In this r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed him in his staff car to the Chief Minister's residence on the night of 27.2.2002. 20. The SIT further contends that the office order which has been shown as referring to reward by the Petitioner indicates a fax message asking M/s. Mackro, Chennai, to send their detailed quotation along with specifications and relevant particulars in respect of Pistol Glock as the Intelligence Bureau of Gujarat was in need to purchase the said equipments. In fact, the reward was given for performing work related to the movement of VIPs. during communal violence after Godhra incident which took place on 27.2.2002. The fax message has been placed on record. Thus, Petitioner has filed false and forged documents in this Court. 21. It is further contended by SIT in its reply that the Petitioner had given wide publicity to the affidavit dated 14.4.2011 through electronic and print media. However, after enquiries SIT has come to the conclusion that Mr. Bhatt was not present in the meeting convened by the then Chief Minister on 27.2.2002. 22. It is further contended by SIT that on 17.6.2011, Mr. K.D. Panth sent an application to the Chairman, SIT enclosing a copy of affidavit affirmed before an E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the shortcomings of SIT under its Chairman. Full text of e-mails exchanged between the Petitioner and Others has been filed. What is of significance is that in rejoinder affidavit, the Petitioner has not controverted e-mail contents mentioned by State of Gujarat in its counter affidavit. Petitioner has filed additional affidavit including certain documents. He has submitted that 9 reports submitted by SIT were sent by the Under Secretary (Home) to the then AAG and to Mr. G.C. Murmu. Mr. Gurumurthy Swaminathan had written to the then AAG that he has received the reports and the attachments. Mr. Gurumurthy Swaminathan forwarded the note for hearing on 15.3.2010 to the counsel appearing on behalf of Pranab Badekha. Petitioner has submitted that SIT reports were given to the State counsel and amicus curiae. They were ultimately forwarded to Mr. Gurumurthy who in turn had advised counsel for the accused Pranab Badekha in this Court. The then AAG had exchanged e-mail with respect to Mr. Bipin Ambalal Patel to his Advocate in this Court. Certain documents were also forwarded to the other counsel. Certain e-mails by Mr. Swaminathan to other functionaries and by AAG to other State functi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpt proceedings be initiated and additional documents may also be enquired into. Prayer has also been made to direct service providers to preserve the e-mails and/or electronic traces thereof. State Government has filed an affidavit in reply and has adopted the counter affidavit dated 8.11.2011 filed in W.P. (Crl.) No. 135/2011. 27. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No. 135/2011 submitted that considering the factual matrix of the case, investigation made in I-CR. No. 149/2011 by the State Police cannot be relied upon as serious allegations made by the Petitioner against the then Chief Minister with respect to the meeting dated 27.2.2002 require to be looked into. Petitioner was present in the said meeting and when he disclosed certain facts against the then Chief Minister the case has been filed by Mr. K.D. Panth at the instigation of certain officers of the State machinery. In the circumstances, investigation made by the State Police cannot be fair and impartial investigation and due to the changed scenario at the national level, even the CBI cannot be relied upon as pressure may also be exerted upon the CBI. Thus a Special I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, regarding hacking of his e-mail account. It was further submitted by learned senior Counsel that the then AAG's conduct as revealed through e-mails shows a criminal conspiracy between him and Others in administration of justice which constitutes offence under the Indian Penal Code and also amounts to contempt of court. Hence, it was submitted that criminal contempt stands substantiated by the fact that participants in the correspondence include law officers of the State of Gujarat, the advocates for the accused in certain cases and the Government of Gujarat and a complete outsider to litigation Mr. Gurumurthy Swaminathan was also consulted by the State of Gujarat. She has further submitted what was exchanged between the parties were confidential documents supposed to be submitted before this Court as well as the State of Gujarat in criminal cases and the documents to be filed on behalf of the State were being shared with individuals who had no connection with the ongoing legal proceedings. Even the documents to be filed on behalf of the accused were being prepared by the law officers of the State with assistance from senior officials of the State. Thus, a prima facie case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No. 204/2011 has submitted that it is the fittest case in which SIT investigation should be ordered by this Court, considering the ramifications of the allegations made by the Petitioner as to the involvement of the then Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat and in riots of 2002. It is the bounden duty of this Court to constitute SIT. Serious criminal conspiracy is apparent from the exchange of e-mails filed by the Petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No. 135/2011 to subvert path of justice. The Petitioner had shared the password due to his affinity with the then AAG and close family friendship. The investigation in the case of II-CR No. 3148/2011 cannot be entrusted to the State Police. In the facts and circumstances, investigation cannot be entrusted to the State Police or to the CBI. He has also taken us through the various documents to take home his submissions. 30. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing for the State of Gujarat has submitted that considering the overall conduct of the Petitioner, e-mail exchange of the Petitioner with the political party in opposition, NGOs., media persons and Others indicates that the Petitioner has conco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown by the Petitioner how the investigation is tainted. The Petitioner wants to widen the scope of the inquiry in the cases in question. The inquiry is limited in both the cases as to whether the Petitioner is guilty of the alleged offences or not. 31. Learned Solicitor General has also taken us through various emails and has contended that in view of the e-mails exchanged, the Petitioner is himself guilty of committing criminal contempt of this Court. He has endeavoured to influence the Special Bench of this Court by exerting pressure by media and other pressure groups. The affidavit of Petitioner was prepared in consultation and deliberation with several persons, groups and NGOs. In case Petitioner was present in meeting dated 27.2.2002 he would not have kept quiet for 9 years. He did not state the said fact in 2009 before SIT. 32. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of SIT submitted that SIT had been constituted by this Court and its work has been appreciated. This Court has monitored its investigation. Petitioner had made unwarranted allegations against SIT for no good cause. Petitioner has not stated about the factum of meeting dated 27.2.2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en AAG could not be said to be improper. The e-mails exchanged by the then AAG, Mr. Gurumurthy etc. cannot be said to be offending and subverting the course of justice whereas the Petitioner himself has tried to influence independent decision making by this Court as reflected by his e-mails. Thus, no cause for any indulgence is made out and the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 35. The backdrop facts indicate that in the wake of Godhra incident which took place on 27.2.2002, National Human Rights Commission filed W.P. (Crl.) 109/2003 in this Court. On 8.6.2006, Ms. Jakia Jafri filed a complaint with the Director General of Police, Gujarat against 63 persons for commission of offence Under Section 302 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code in relation to Gujarat riots requesting the complaint to be registered as an FIR which was refused. Said Jakia Jafri filed criminal complaint-Special Crl. Application No. 421/2007-seeking a direction to register the case as an FIR vide order dated 2.11.2007. SLP (Crl.) No. 1088/2008 was preferred by said Jakia Jafri. On 3.3.2008 this Court issued notice. On 26.3.2008 in National Human Rights Commission case-W.P. (Crl.) No. 109/2003, this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner and Mr. Yadav met amicus curiae. However, Mr. K.D. Panth did not turn up for meeting amicus curiae as such his affidavit dated 17.6.2011 was handed over to him by the Petitioner. Mr. Panth lodged a report against the Petitioner as to obtaining the aforesaid affidavit in illegal manner which had been registered on 22.6.2011 in I-CR. No. 149/2011. The statement of the Petitioner was recorded by Justice Nanavati Commission initially on 16.5.2011. He was also cross-examined on 29.6.2011. 36. It is also relevant to mention certain e-mails which have been placed on record and relied upon by the Respondents so as to contend that petition has not been filed bona fide. In the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner, the e-mails which have been referred to in the return filed by the State of Gujarat have not been controverted or alleged to be incorrect in any manner by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has annexed full text of some of the e-mails along with rejoinder. However substance of the e-mails remains the same. Though the Petitioner has also mentioned in the rejoinder affidavit that he has filed complaint with the DIG (Police), Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police regarding unauthorize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Ellisbridge Gymkhana, Ahmedabad. Petitioner has also exchanged the affidavit dated 14.4.2011 with a journalist. He has also consulted about the contents of the affidavit with a journalist who has suggested addition of a paragraph which appears to have been incorporated in his corrected affidavit. Be that as it may. At least it is apparent that before sending the affidavit dated 14.4.2011 to this Court it was exchanged to invite suggestions. Petitioner had also suggested the affidavit of yet another correspondent in order to support his statement that he had attended the meeting dated 27.2.2002. Petitioner has sent e-mail to the said correspondent to the effect that May be you can mention that I had met him (Sanjiv Bhatt) on 27th when he was about to go to the "disputed meeting". The Petitioner had send an e-mail to one of the TV channels on 19.5.2011 to the following effect: Filed an affidavit in Supreme Court on 16th May, saying that he was with me when he had to leave for CM's meeting on 27th. Kindly confirm through your sources in Supreme Court. In one of the e-mails the Petitioner even asks Correspondent whether he would be comfortable with xxxxxxx? (Names of medi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the party and getting suitably instructed. The Petitioner has sent the e-mails of the then AAG with to news channels but they decided not to use them and Petitioner had also suggested them they could also access the e-mail of the then AAG. 42. In e-mail exchange with another officer indicated that the Petitioner was trying to ascertain location of one Haren Pandya on 27th night from the said officer. Said officer replied: there is absolutely no question of him being in Gandhinagar. It appears that the Petitioner has stated that Haren Pandya was also there in CM's residence on 27.2.2002. Petitioner was also trying to ascertain the precise time of the meeting in his e-mail exchange with the said officer. The Petitioner had sent another e-mail to the said officer. The same is to the following effect: The deposition went well. The cross could have been a little better. I felt a little under-exploited! Lets hope they exploit me fully during subsequent hearings. Petitioner has also exchanged e-mails with others to recreate his movement on 27.2.2002. 43. The aforesaid exchange of e-mails which are self-explanatory indicate that the Petitioner was in active touch with leaders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... performance has been appreciated by this Court a number of times. Petitioner after keeping quiet for 9 years had taken Mr. K.D. Panth with himself to the SIT on 25.3.2011 and insisted that Mr. Panth should be examined in his presence. It was not expected of a senior officer like Petitioner to act in the aforesaid manner. Effort of Petitioner to examine Mr. K.D. Panth on 25.3.2011 in his presence by SIT was indicative of pressure tactic employed by him. The SIT ultimately examined Mr. Panth on 5.4.2011 and Mr. Panth has not supported the stand of the Petitioner that he attended the meeting dated 27.2.2002. Later on Petitioner as per his own case, got drafted and obtained the affidavit of Mr. Panth and Mr. Tara Chand Yadav and he had provided legal assistance to them and had handed over the affidavit of Mr. Panth to the amicus curiae appointed by this Court; whereas Mr. Panth did not turn up to handover his own affidavit. It is also apparent that the Petitioner had acted in deliberation and consultation with the leaders of rival political party, NGOs. and had sent the e-mails to the effect that he was not fully exploited by a counsel of the rival political party while his statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexplicable conduct. In the statement before Justice Nanavati Commission also Petitioner has failed to state about the e-mails. When he has sent the e-mails to the effect that his potential was not fully exploited by rival political party, what prevented him from stating about the e-mails before Justice Nanavati Commission also is not understandable. Learned senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in response to the query made by the court why the Petitioner kept quiet as to e-mails on aforesaid occasions, fairly and rightly conceded that it was the duty of the Petitioner to state on the aforesaid occasions as to the emails but their explanation that Petitioner was ultimately pushed to the wall by registering a criminal case at the behest of Mr. Panth, then he disclosed the e-mails, is also not acceptable as the Petitioner's statement before Justice Nanavati Commission continued even after the date of registration of offence. The aforesaid explanation does not appear to be sound one. The Petitioner has filed the e-mails first time in this Court along with affidavit dated 29.7.2011. This was around the time when the report as to hacking of e-mail account and tampering with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The SIT conducted further investigation and submitted its report dated 17.11.2010 before this Court. On 20.1.2011 learned amicus curiae appointed by this Court submitted a preliminary report. This Court on 15.3.2011 directed Chairman, SIT to look into the observations made by the learned amicus curiae and to carry out further investigation if necessary in the light of the suggestions made by amicus curiae. Thereafter on 21.3.2011, 22.3.2011 and 25.3.2011 the Petitioner was examined by the SIT and Mr. K.D. Panth on 6.4.2011. The Petitioner had sent an unsolicited affidavit on 14.4.2011 to this Court which was not taken on record. Petitioner was also summoned by Justice Nanavati Commission on 27.4.2011. The SIT conducted further investigation Under Section 173(8) in the Gulberg Society case and submitted its report on 24.4.2011. This Court examined the report dated 24.4.2011 submitted by SIT and directed on 5.5.2011 that a copy of the same be supplied to the learned amicus curiae who shall examine the reports of the SIT and make an independent assessment of the witnesses statements recorded by the SIT and submit his comments thereon and also observed that it would be open to the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the accusations in investigation, which are to be determined at the trial on the filing of the charge-sheet in the competent court, according to the ordinary procedure prescribed by law. 10. Accordingly, we direct the Chairman, SIT to forward a final report, along with the entire material collected by SIT, to the court which had taken cognizance of Crime Report No. 67 of 2002, as required Under Section 173(2) of the Code. Before submission of its report, it will be open to SIT to obtain from the amicus curiae copies of his reports submitted to this Court. The said court will deal with the matter in accordance with law relating to the trial of the accused, named in the report/charge-sheet, including matters falling within the ambit and scope of Section 173(8) of the Code. 11. However, at this juncture, we deem it necessary to emphasise that if for any stated reason SIT opines in its report, to be submitted in terms of this order, that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds for proceeding against any person named in the complaint dated 8-6-2006, before taking a final decision on such "closure" report, the court shall issue notice to the complainant and make avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and baseless. Two e-mails referred to by the Petitioner were sent by Ms. Geetha Zohri, IPS, Additional DG of Police, and the then Convener of SIT from the email of SIT for Godhra cases to the then AAG. Both these e-mails were related to the investigation done in the year 2005 in the Sohrabuddin encounter case by the State Police (Crime) of which Ms. Geetha Zohri IG (Crime) was incharge. She wrongly used the e-mail ID of Godhra cases at her cost to transmit these information pertaining to CID (Crime) to the then AAG. That information absolutely had nothing to do with the matters pending investigation/inquiry/trial with the Supreme Court-appointed SIT for Godhra cases. Petitioner had made deliberate attempt to mislead this Court and has enclosed only the covering text of the e-mails and intentionally avoided the enclosures because the same would have exposed falsity of his stand. The two e-mails dated 14.2.2009 sent by Ms. Geetha Zohri to the then AAG have been filed along with the enclosures by SIT. A report in this regard had already been submitted by SIT to this Court on 23.2.2011. Thus the Petitioner is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. He has suppressed the enclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er at this stage. It has to be gone into during the course of trial. The Petitioner has unnecessarily tried to widen the scope of the case and no case is made out so as to direct investigation in CR. No. 149/2011 by SIT into the circumstances in which affidavit dated 17.6.2011 of Mr. K.D. Panth has been obtained. Once the chargesheet has been filed the court has to proceed in accordance with law in the matter. 53. It was also submitted on behalf of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that counter affidavit filed in W.P. (Crl.) No. 135/2011 discloses sufficient reason to constitute SIT in which in the reply filed by Respondent No. 2 it has been mentioned that "there is no room for doubt that it is a systematic and larger conspiracy through the Petitioner of rival political party in Gujarat and vested interest groups surviving on anti-Gujarat campaign all of whom had started efforts to keep the Godhra riot issue live based on concocted facts and the Petitioner, through all of them, is trying to build up a story at a stage when after almost 10 long years this Court has virtually concluded the judicial proceedings after undertaking tremendous judicial exercise". In our opinion, by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Best Bakery, Sohrabuddin encounter etc., considering the nature of the case, appropriate directions were issued by this Court for conducting impartial investigation by CBI or other independent agency. However, SIT constituted by this Court has already investigated into the main cases and the scope of cases in hand is not so wide in magnitude so as to direct the SIT or CBI to investigate into the matters. 57. It was submitted by learned senior Counsel that there is a need for investigation by an independent agency when the local police officials and State officials are involved. For that, learned senior Counsel has relied upon R.S. Sodhi, Advocate v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1994) Supp 1 SCC 143 as follows: 2.....we think that since the accusations are directed against the local police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the investigation to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned including the relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an independent agency is looking into the matter and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility. However faithfully the local police may carry out the investigatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y have failed to properly investigate matters arising out of the seizure of the so called "Jain Diaries" in certain raids conducted by the CBI. It is alleged that the apprehending of certain terrorists led to the discovery of financial support to them by clandestine and illegal means, by use of tainted funds obtained through 'hawala' transactions; that this also disclosed a nexus between several important politicians, bureaucrats and criminals, who are all recipients of money from unlawful sources given for unlawful considerations; that the CBI and other government agencies have failed to fully investigate into the matter and take it to the logical end point of the trial and to prosecute all persons who have committed any crime; that this is being done with a view to protect the persons involved, who are very influential and powerful in the present set up; that the matter discloses a definite nexus between crime and corruption in public life at high places in the country which poses a serious threat to the integrity, security and economy of the nation; that probity in public life, to prevent erosion of the rule of law and the preservation of democracy in the country, requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and ambit of enquiry in both the cases, the submission based upon Rubabbuddin Sheikh (supra), Narmada Bai (supra), State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. [(2011) 9 SCC 182] and Bharati Tamang v. Union of India and Anr. [(2013) 15 SCC 578] is untenable. 62. Coming to question whether criminal contempt proceedings to be initiated, as prayed, learned senior Counsel appearing for Petitioner has heavily relied upon e-mail exchanges filed by Petitioner allegedly from e-mail account of the then AAG with respect to which offence CR. No. 3148/2011 Under Section 66 of the IT Act has been registered. The allegation against Petitioner is of hacking of account and tampering with e-mails with respect to which an FIR has been filed, without meaning to deciding the correctness of the e-mails they are being looked into only for the purpose whether criminal contempt of the Court has been committed. 63. It was submitted by learned senior Counsel for Petitioner that there was criminal nexus between the then AAG with lawyers of the accused, Ministers and non-State actors to undermine the administration of justice. It was submitted that certain replies etc. which were to be filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the administration of justice in any manner. Petitioner was not able to establish how the reports could be of any help to anybody so as to subvert the course of justice or action otherwise amounts to interference with administration of justice. The Petitioner has himself obtained these SIT reports, as per the then AAG allegedly in illegal manner whereas as per Petitioner by sharing the e-mails of the then AAG. If they were meant to be confidential Petitioner has also used them and even sent e-mail particulars of the then AAG to media channels. Therefore the submission advanced does not lie in his mouth. Overall exchange has to be considered in the light of sweeping accusations against the State and its large number of functionaries. The conduct of the then AAG in the circumstances he was placed, has been unnecessarily adversely commented upon, the accusation of criminal contempt is not at all made out. 65. Merely sending some representation which was to be submitted to the President and Prime Minister of India, and other documents to an advocate who was a politician also would not tantamount to criminal contempt unless and until it is shown that the information was intended to hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dministration of justice is weak or in corrupt hands. The fountain of justice is tainted. Secondly, the judgments that stream out of that foul fountain are impure and contaminated. In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) Vol. 9, para 27 at page 21 on the topic "Scandalising the Court" it is stated that scurrilous abuse of a judge or court, or attacks on the personal character of a judge, are punishable contempts. The punishment is inflicted, not for the purpose of protecting either the court as a whole or the individual judges of the court from a repetition of the attack, but of protecting the public, and especially those who either voluntarily or by compulsion are subject to the jurisdiction of the court, from the mischief they will incur if the authority of the tribunal is undermined or impaired. In consequence, the court has regarded with particular seriousness allegations of partiality or bias on the part of a judge or a court. On the other hand, criticism of a judge's conduct or of the conduct of a court, even if strongly worded, is not a contempt provided that the criticism is fair, temperate and made in good faith, and is not directed to the personal character of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch has the tendency or produces a tendency to bring the judge or court into contempt or tends to lower the authority of the court would also be contempt of the court. (Emphasis supplied) 68. This Court in Rizwan-Ul-Hasan and Anr. v. State of U.P. [AIR 1953 SC 185] has laid down that judicial contempt is not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with due course of justice and the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction upon a mere question of propriety. This Court has laid down thus: 10.... the jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice and that the purpose of the Court's action is a practical purpose and it is reasonably clear on the authorities that the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction upon a mere question of propriety. 69. Considering the aforesaid decisions, it does not appear that the e-mail exchange between the then AAG and other functionaries tantamounts to causing prejudice or amounts to substantial interference in any other manner in due course of justice. It is not the case of scand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
