22 February, 2016

Discuss the Penal Provisions under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies authority, justice, and dignity of the court. A judge who feels someone is improperly challenging or ignoring the court's authority has the power to declare the defiant person (called the contemnor) in contempt of court. There are two types of contempt, criminal and civil. Penal provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, have been described under Section 12. The Self-explanatory provisions of Section 12 are as follows:
Section 12. Punishment for Contempt of Court.- (l) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.
Explanation. –(1) An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the Court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.
(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment, if he proves, that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager secretary or other Officer of the company such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the Court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.
Explanation.- For the purpose of sub-sections (4) and (5):
(a)      "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b)     "director" in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.
In V.C, Misra's case, AIR 1995 SC 2348, the Supreme Court held that being the Apex Court and a superior court of Record, the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction under Article 129 of the Constitution, and has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for contempt of subordinate courts. Thus, Supreme Court is fully competent to take cognizance of the contempt of the High Courts, as they are subordinate to it, and so it may punish the Contemner for the same.

Courtesy:- Legal Point Foundation

No comments: