Contributed By Deepak Miglani Advocate
The Supreme Court has asked the High Courts to exercise contempt of court power in an appropriate case with utmost caution. The court cannot reject an apology just because it is qualified and conditional provided it finds it is bona fide.
A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly said that when the High Court exercised its contempt power under the Contempt of Courts Act, “it is virtually exercising the same as a guardian of the subordinate judiciary to protect its proceedings against an outrage and affront.”
The Bench said: “When contempt takes place in the face of the court, people's faith in the administration of justice receives a severe jolt and precious judicial time is wasted.”
At the same time, the Bench said: “An apology in a contempt proceeding must be offered at the earliest possible opportunity. A belated apology hardly shows the ‘contrition which is the essence of the purging of a contempt.”
Justice Ganguly writing the judgment, however, said: “It is not incumbent upon the court to accept the apology as soon as it is offered. Before an apology can be accepted, the court must find that it is bona fide and is to the satisfaction of the court. However, court cannot reject an apology just because it is qualified and conditional provided the court finds it is bona fide.”
Further “even if it is not belated where apology is without real contrition and remorse and was merely tendered as weapon of defence, the court may refuse to accept it.”
In the instant case, the appellant, Ranveer Yadav, challenged the Patna High Court order awarding two months' simple imprisonment to him and a fine of Rs. 2,000 for contempt of court for causing disturbance in a sessions court during the trial of a criminal case in which he was cited as a witness. The High Court took up contempt proceedings on a reference from the trial court against six contemnors, Bharat Yadav, Bimal Yadav, Ajay Yadav, Pandav Yadav and Madan Yadav, accused in the case and against the appellant.
While other five contemnors were let off with a reprimand, the appellant was punished.
The present appeal is directed against that order.
Appeal dismissed
Dismissing the appeal, the Bench said: “The offending acts of the appellant constitute contempt in the face of court. The offending acts of the appellant certainly come within the ambit of interference with the due course of judicial proceeding and are a clear case of criminal contempt. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, therefore was correct in holding the appellant guilty and also in punishing him with the sentence it has imposed.”
Source:- Wednesday, May 19, 2010
A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly said that when the High Court exercised its contempt power under the Contempt of Courts Act, “it is virtually exercising the same as a guardian of the subordinate judiciary to protect its proceedings against an outrage and affront.”
The Bench said: “When contempt takes place in the face of the court, people's faith in the administration of justice receives a severe jolt and precious judicial time is wasted.”
At the same time, the Bench said: “An apology in a contempt proceeding must be offered at the earliest possible opportunity. A belated apology hardly shows the ‘contrition which is the essence of the purging of a contempt.”
Justice Ganguly writing the judgment, however, said: “It is not incumbent upon the court to accept the apology as soon as it is offered. Before an apology can be accepted, the court must find that it is bona fide and is to the satisfaction of the court. However, court cannot reject an apology just because it is qualified and conditional provided the court finds it is bona fide.”
Further “even if it is not belated where apology is without real contrition and remorse and was merely tendered as weapon of defence, the court may refuse to accept it.”
In the instant case, the appellant, Ranveer Yadav, challenged the Patna High Court order awarding two months' simple imprisonment to him and a fine of Rs. 2,000 for contempt of court for causing disturbance in a sessions court during the trial of a criminal case in which he was cited as a witness. The High Court took up contempt proceedings on a reference from the trial court against six contemnors, Bharat Yadav, Bimal Yadav, Ajay Yadav, Pandav Yadav and Madan Yadav, accused in the case and against the appellant.
While other five contemnors were let off with a reprimand, the appellant was punished.
The present appeal is directed against that order.
Appeal dismissed
Dismissing the appeal, the Bench said: “The offending acts of the appellant constitute contempt in the face of court. The offending acts of the appellant certainly come within the ambit of interference with the due course of judicial proceeding and are a clear case of criminal contempt. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, therefore was correct in holding the appellant guilty and also in punishing him with the sentence it has imposed.”
Source:- Wednesday, May 19, 2010
For any query:- deepakmiglani@hotmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment