REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1376 OF 2004
Muthu Karuppan .... Appellant(s)
Versus
Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & Anr. .... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order
dated 29.10.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 397 of
2001 whereby the High Court held the respondents therein
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 2 (c) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short `the Act') and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days under
Section 12 of the Act.
1
2) Brief Facts:
(a) Parithi Ilamvazhuthi-Respondent No. 1 herein was
elected as Member of Legislative Assembly (in short `MLA') of
the Egmore Constituency, Chennai in the Elections held on
10.05.2001 to the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly.
Large scale violence and several attempts of booth capturing
were reported on the day of election. In respect of the same,
Crime No. 958 of 2001 was registered against his opposite
party candidate John Pandian and others for various offences.
Similarly, Crime No. 960 of 2001 was registered against
Respondent No. 1 by one David for various offences. John
Pandian was arrested on 10.05.2001 and remanded to judicial
custody. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for
anticipatory bail being Crl. M.P. No. 6244 of 2001 before the
Sessions Court, Chennai and the same was dismissed on
16.05.2001 stating that the investigation is at an early stage
and enlargement would hamper the investigation.
(b) On 17.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 was arrested and
remanded to judicial custody. On the same day, Muthu
Karuppan-the appellant herein was appointed as
2
Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City and assumed
charge. On 21.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 moved an
application for bail being Crl. M.P. No. 1379 of 2001 before the
XIV Metropolitan Magistrate which was dismissed on the same
day. On 22.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 moved an application
for bail being Crl. M.P. No. 6277 of 2001 before the Principal
Sessions Court, Chennai mainly on the ground that he has to
attend the Assembly which has commenced on 22.05.2001 to
take oath as MLA. On 23.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 was
granted conditional bail by the Sessions Judge.
(c) On 24.05.2001, Rajendra Kumar, Inspector of Police,
(L&O), Tamil Nadu-Respondent No. 2 herein, filed an
application for cancellation of bail being Crl. O.P. No. 9352 of
2001 before the High Court of Madras and sought for stay of
bail granted to Respondent No. 1 herein. On the same day,
learned single Judge of the High Court stayed the order of
grant of bail and ordered notice to Respondent No. 1 on the
ground that the victim, namely, David is in a serious condition
and the accused is in police custody. On 28.05.2001, on
receipt of the said notice, Respondent No. 1 filed a counter
3
affidavit submitting that the statement of Respondent No. 2
regarding police custody is false. On 29.05.2001, Respondent
No. 2 filed his reply affidavit admitting that it was a mistake by
oversight and the same is neither willful nor wanton.
(d) On 30.05.2001, the petition for cancellation of bail was
dismissed by the High Court holding that no ground was made
out for cancellation of the bail. After the order dated
30.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 filed Contempt Application No.
397 of 2001 before the High Court stating that on the
direction, supervision and knowledge of the appellant herein,
Respondent No. 2 moved an application to cancel the bail
granted to him on the basis of false statement thereby
prevented him from attending the Assembly.
(e) On 29.10.2004, the Division Bench of the High Court held
the respondents therein guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 2(c) of the Act and sentenced them to undergo simple
imprisonment for 7 days under Section 12 of the Act.
(f) Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court,
appellant herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 2004 before
this Court and on 13.12.2004, this Court admitted the appeal
4
and stayed the operation of the impugned order insofar as it
relates to the appellant. Respondent No. 2 also filed Criminal
Appeal No. 1500 of 2004 before this Court and by order dated
05.01.2005, this Court dismissed the appeal on merits holding
that the case of the Commissioner of Police stands entirely on
a different footing.
3) Heard Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel for
respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
4) Before going into the correctness or otherwise of the
impugned order of the Division Bench punishing the appellant
for the offence under Section 2(c) of the Act and sentencing
him under Section 12 of the Act to undergo simple
imprisonment for 7 days, it is useful to refer the facts leading
to initiation of contempt proceeding. It is the grievance of
Respondent No. 1 that after the grant of bail, Respondent No.
2 filed a false affidavit in Criminal O.P. No. 9352 of 2001 that
the police custody had been ordered by the XIV Metropolitan
Magistrate on 23.05.2001, based on which, the learned single
5
Judge of the High Court stayed the order of grant of bail
passed in favour of Respondent No. 1. After preliminary
examination, the Division Bench, by order dated 20.06.2001,
issued notice to Respondent No. 2 herein to show cause as to
why contempt proceeding against him should not be initiated
for having made false statement with intent to mislead the
Court. In the same proceeding, the Division Bench directed
issuance of notice to the Commissioner of Police-appellant
herein as to the averments of an elected MLA being in police
custody could not reasonably have been made prima facie
without the knowledge of the Commissioner, more so, when
the election had just taken place and the elected member was
required to take oath, but by reason of his detention was being
prevented from taking oath. In the same paragraph, it was
further stated that the extent to which the Commissioner had
knowledge about the filing of the petition for cancellation of
bail, the instructions, if any, he had given in that regard, the
persons to whom such instructions had been given and the
nature of instructions shall also be disclosed by the
Commissioner in his affidavit.
6
5) Based on the notice issued by the Division Bench in its
order dated 20.06.2001, the appellant-Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City, at the relevant time and the second respondent
Inspector of Police (L&O), Chennai filed separate affidavits
explaining their stand.
6) In order to understand the above issue, it is relevant to
refer Section 2(c) of the Act which defines criminal contempt
as:
"(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether
by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing
of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, of lowers or
tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with,
the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs
or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice
in any other manner."
7) Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil
which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand.
Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient
in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent, but there
must be a prima facie case of "deliberate falsehood" on a
7
matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that
there is a reasonable foundation for the charge.
8) In a series of decisions, this Court held that the
enquiry/contempt proceedings should be initiated by the court
in exceptional circumstances where the court is of the opinion
that perjury has been committed by a party deliberately to
have some beneficial order from the court. There must be
grounds of a nature higher than mere surmise or suspicion for
initiating such proceedings. There must be distinct evidence
of the commission of an offence by such a person as mere
suspicion cannot bring home the charge of making false
statement, more so, the court has to determine as on facts
whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to enquire into
offence which appears to have been committed.
9) The contempt proceedings being quasi criminal in nature,
burden and standard of proof is the same as required in
criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as per the
statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved beyond
reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged contemnor
is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not permit
8
imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings on mere
probabilities, equally, the court cannot punish the alleged
contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and
surmises. As observed above, the contempt proceeding being
quasi criminal in nature require strict adherence to the
procedure prescribed under the rules applicable in such
proceedings.
10) In exercise of the powers conferred on the High Court
under Articles 215 and 225 of the Constitution of India and in
terms of Section 23 of the Act, the Madras High Court
Contempt of Court Rules, 1975 (in short `the Rules') have been
framed. The said Rules prescribe procedure for initiating
contempt and various steps to be adhered to. By drawing our
attention to the Rules, Mr. Ganguli, learned senior counsel for
the appellant submitted that Rules 4 and 8 have not been
complied with. By emphasizing the principles in paras 12 and
16 of the decision of this Court in R.S. Sujatha vs. State of
Karnataka & Ors., 2010 (12) Scale 556, learned senior
counsel submitted that the contempt proceedings being quasi
criminal in nature require strict adherence to the procedure
9
prescribed under the rules applicable to such proceedings. He
also pointed out that while sending notice, relevant documents
have not been enclosed and the consent of Advocate General
was not obtained for initiating contempt proceedings against
the appellant. Insofar as the documents referred to being
certain orders of the court, no serious objection was taken
note of for not sending the same.
Consent of the Advocate General
11) The relevant provision which deals with cognizance of
criminal contempt in other cases is Section 15 of the Act
which reads as under:
"15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other
cases.--(1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other
than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme
Court or the High Court may take action on its own
motion or on a motion made by--
(a) the Advocate-General, or
(b) any other person, with the consent in writing to
the Advocate-General, or
(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union
territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other
person, with the consent in writing of such Law
Officer."
10
The whole object of prescribing procedural mode of taking
cognizance is to safeguard the valuable time of the Court from
being wasted by frivolous contempt petitions. In State of
Kerala vs. M.S. Mani & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 82, this Court
held that the requirement of obtaining prior consent of the
Advocate General in writing for initiating proceedings of
criminal contempt is mandatory and failure to obtain prior
consent would render the motion non-maintainable. In case,
a party obtains consent subsequent to filing of the petition, it
would not cure the initial defect and thus, the petition would
not become maintainable.
12) In Bal Thackrey vs. Harish Pimpalkhute & Anr., AIR
2005 SC 396, this Court held that in absence of the consent of
the Advocate General in respect of a criminal contempt filed by
a party under Section 15 of the Act, taking suo motu action for
contempt without a prayer, was not maintainable.
13) However, in Amicus Curiae vs. Prashant Bhushan and
Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 592, this Court has considered the earlier
judgments and held that in a rare case, even if the cognizance
11
is deemed to have been taken in terms of Rule 3(c) of the Rules
to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court,
1975, without the consent of the Attorney General or the
Solicitor General, the proceedings must be held to be
maintainable in view of the fact that the issues involved in the
proceedings had far reaching greater ramifications and impact
on the administration of justice and on the justice delivery
system and the credibility of the court in the eyes of general
public.
14) It is clear from the recent decision of this Court in
Prashant Bhushan's case (supra) that if the issue involved
in the proceedings had greater impact on the administration of
justice and on the justice delivery system, the court is
competent to go into the contempt proceedings even without
the consent of the Advocate General as the case may be.
15) Now, coming to the merits of the impugned order of the
High Court, contempt proceeding was initiated mainly on the
basis of a false statement made on oath by Respondent No. 2
which resulted in stay of the bail order passed by the Sessions
12
Judge, Chennai in favour of the Respondent No. 1, and
prevented him from taking oath in the Assembly. Inasmuch
as the High Court has dealt with the issue elaborately on
factual aspects and we also adverted to the same in the earlier
part of our judgment, there is no need to traverse the same
once again. In respect of violence on the day of election,
Respondent No. 1 was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody on 17.05.2001. On the same day, that is, on
17.05.2001, the appellant was appointed as Commissioner of
Police, Greater Chennai City and assumed charge. On
21.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 moved an application for bail in
Crl. M.P. No. 1379 of 2001 before the XIV Metropolitan
Magistrate which was dismissed on the same day. On
22.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 moved an application for bail
before the Sessions Judge in Crl. M.P. No. 6277 of 2001
mainly on the ground that as the new Assembly Session
commences on 22.05.2001, he has to take oath and further
the victim, namely, David has also been discharged from the
hospital. On 23.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 was granted
conditional bail by the Sessions Judge mainly on the ground
13
that he has to take oath as MLA. It is further seen that
against grant of bail to Respondent No. 1, Inspector of Police-
Respondent No. 2 filed an application being Crl. O.P. No. 9352
of 2001 on 24.05.2001 for cancellation of bail with application
for stay before the High Court. On the same day, vacation
Judge of the High Court stayed the order of grant of bail to
Respondent No. 1 till 29.05.2001 on the ground that victim,
namely, David is in serious condition and the accused
Respondent No. 1 is in police custody. By pointing out that
the information furnished by Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit
filed in support of the application for stay of the order of grant
of bail regarding his police custody is false, Respondent No. 1
filed a counter affidavit praying for vacation of the stay granted
by the High Court. On 29.05.2001, Respondent No. 2 filed his
reply affidavit submitting that on 23.05.2001 application
seeking police custody of other 8 accused were made and in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition to cancel the bail,
by oversight, it was mentioned that police custody was also
obtained in respect of the Respondent No. 1. He also conveyed
to the court that it is a mistake by oversight and the same is
14
neither willful nor wanton. On going through the material
placed, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 30.05.2001,
dismissed Crl. O.P. No. 9352 of 2001 filed by Respondent No.
2 to cancel the bail granted to the first respondent by the
Sessions Judge.
16) The Division Bench, based on the materials placed by
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 concluded that Respondent No. 2
has filed a false affidavit knowing well the contents of the
same are false in order to mislead the court for preventing the
petitioner therein, an MLA, from coming out of the jail thereby
restrained him from attending the Assembly. Though
Respondent No. 2 filed Crl. Appeal No. 1500 of 2004, the same
was dismissed by this Court on 05.01.2005. While dismissing
the appeal of Respondent No. 2, this Court made the following
observation which is relevant and is reproduced hereunder:
"Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
It has been pointed out that the appeal filed by the
Commissioner of Police has been admitted by this
Court. In our view, the case of the Commissioner of
Police stands entirely on a different footing. So far as
the appellant is concerned, we do not find any merit in
his appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."
15
17) The Division Bench, by the impugned order, proceeded
on the fact that the Commissioner of Police-appellant herein
was aware of the arrest of Respondent No. 1 and also of the
fact that as an elected MLA because of the wrong information
by Respondent No. 2, the High Court stayed the order of bail
and he was prevented from assuming office as MLA and dealt
with the matter and finally convicted him under Section 2(c) of
the Act. It is the definite stand of the appellant that he was
never consulted by the subordinate police officers before filing
of the application for cancellation of bail and he was not aware
of the contents of the said affidavit and as such he was not
responsible. It is also his claim that when the incorrect
statement made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition
was brought to his notice by Mr. Christopher Nelson, Deputy
Commissioner of Police on 28.05.2001, he directed him to give
instruction to Respondent No. 2 to file a proper affidavit and
as such, he was never a party to the said false affidavit and,
therefore, he is not liable for contempt.
16
18) It is seen from the written statement made by the
appellant before the High Court that he was informed about
the arrest of MLA-Respondent No. 1 and the same has been
conveyed to the Speaker as well as the Chief Secretary. It is
the stand of the Division Bench that the Commissioner of
Police must have been informed by the subordinate Police
Officers not only about the arrest of Respondent No. 1 but also
his release by the Sessions Judge to enable him to inform the
Speaker and the Government. However, according to the
Division Bench, the Commissioner did not clearly indicate
either in the counter affidavit or in the written statement that
he was informed about the bail order passed by the Sessions
Judge on 23.05.2001. The High Court has also referred to the
general powers of the Commissioner of Police with reference to
certain standing orders issued by the Government. There is
no dispute that the Commissioner of Police being Head of the
Police Force of the City, if he comes across the arrest/release
of an elected MLA, he is duty bound to inform the Speaker as
well as the Government. However, it is his definite case and
asserted that he was not aware of the information furnished
17
by Respondent No. 2 for cancellation of bail granted by the
Sessions Judge and the ultimate stay order passed by the
High Court.
19) In order to refute the claim of the Commissioner of Police,
the Division Bench heavily relied on the presence of K.
Anthonisamy, Assistant Commissioner of Police and C.
Chandrasekar, Deputy Commissioner of Police in the office of
the Public Prosecutor along with Respondent No. 2 who filed
an affidavit praying for cancellation of the bail. It is true that
both Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy
Commissioner of Police in their respective affidavits admitted
their presence in the office of the Public Prosecutor and their
interaction with one Mr. Raja, the then government counsel.
It is relevant to refer the information furnished in the form of
an affidavit dated 04.04.2003 by Christopher Nelson.
According to him, he joined as Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Law and Order, Triplicane, District Chennai City on
26.05.2001. He asserted that he was not aware of the details
of the case in question prior to 26.05.2001. The last two
18
paragraphs, namely, paras 6 and 7 of his affidavit filed before
the Division Bench are relevant which read thus:
"6. I respectfully state that Thiru K. Antony Samy, who
was then Assistant Commissioner of Police, (Law &
Order), Kilpauk Range, Chennai-7 informed me on
28052001, that the aforesaid Parithi Ilamvazhuthi had
filed a counter affidavit before the Hon'ble High Court,
seeking to reject the application of cancellation of bail
on the ground that some incorrect information was filed
by the first respondent I was further informed that in
the affidavit filed by the first respondent seeking
cancellation of bail on 24.05.2001. It has been stated
that for granting police custody the XIV Metropolitan
Magistrate by his order dated 23.052001 had directed
that some accused to be produced on 28.052001.
7 I, respectfully submit that on the very same day, I
informed the commissioner of Police, the second
respondent about the allegations of mistake in the
affidavit filed by the investigation officer, the first
respondent herein, I was directed by the second
respondent herein to instruct the Assistant
Commissioner of Police to file a fresh affidavit, if
necessary before the High Court, explaining the alleged
mistake in the affidavit filed by the first respondent
earlier. In compliance thereof, I instructed Thiru
Antony Samy, the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Law & Order, Kilpauk Range, to see that a proper
affidavit is filed by the inspector concerned before the
Hon'ble High Court, explaining the circumstances under
which alleged mistake appeared in the affidavit filed
earlier by him. Accordingly, such an affidavit was filed
before the Hon'ble High Court on 29.052001."
It is clear at least from para 7 that when the information
relating to making wrong statement at the instance of
Respondent No. 2 was brought to the notice of the
19
Commissioner of Police, he directed the Deputy Commissioner
of Police to instruct the Assistant Commissioner of Police and
Inspector of Police to file fresh affidavit explaining the alleged
mistake in the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 earlier. It is
also seen that pursuant to the said direction of the
Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of Police
instructed one K. Anthonisamy, Assistant Commissioner of
Police to see that proper affidavit is filed by the Inspector
concerned before the High Court explaining the circumstances
under which the mistake appeared in the affidavit filed on
earlier occasion. Pursuant to the notice by the Division Bench
of the High Court, C. Chandrasekar, Deputy Commissioner of
Police at Triplicane also filed an affidavit to the effect that after
knowing the grant of bail by the Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai releasing Respondent No. 1 after considering
seriousness of the case and after discussion with "superior
officers" it has been decided to move an application for
cancellation of the bail in the High Court. The Division Bench
relying on the statement of the above officer concluded that
the Commissioner of Police was consulted and it was he who
20
instructed the subordinate Police Officers to move an
application for stay of grant of bail. Though in para 4, the
deponent of the affidavit, namely, C. Chandrasekar has
mentioned that "after discussion with superior officers" it is
not clear whether he consulted the Commissioner of Police i.e.
appellant herein on the relevant issue.
20) K. Anthonisamy, Deputy Commissioner of Police, CBCID,
Chennai Range who was working as an Assistant
Commissioner of Police at Kilpauk Chennai during the
relevant period also swore an affidavit on 24.09.2004. In para
4, he also mentioned that after discussion with "superior
officers" and on instructions, it was decided to file an
application for cancellation of bail in the High Court. Here
again, the Division Bench has concluded that the
Commissioner of Police ought to have been consulted by the
Assistant Commissioner of Police and only with his knowledge
petition was filed for cancellation of bail. The above averment
in para 4 merely mentions discussion with "superior officers"
and there is no specific reference to the Commissioner of
Police who is the Head of the Police Force in the Chennai City.
21
In the same way, in para 5 also, the deponent of the affidavit
has mentioned that after the grant of stay by the High Court,
he intimated the development to his superior officers. Here
again, he has not specifically informed the court that he had
intimated to the Commissioner of Police. Like Mr. Nelson,
Deputy Commissioner of Police, he also informed the court
that on coming to know the discrepancy in the affidavit dated
24.05.2001 filed by the Inspector of Police for cancellation of
the bail, he was directed by the Commissioner of Police to
rectify the discrepancy immediately. Accordingly, Respondent
No. 2 filed the reply affidavit narrating all the facts on
29.05.2001.
21) The analysis of affidavits of the Inspector of Police,
Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police
show that there is no acceptable material that the affidavit
containing wrong information filed by Respondent No. 2 for
cancellation of bail and stay of bail order was made at the
instance of the Commissioner of Police. We have already
pointed out that the appellant has assumed charge as the
Commissioner of Police only on 17.05.2001 i.e. after formation
22
of the new government. The violence in respect of election that
took place on 10.05.2001, particularly, the incident relating to
Respondent No. 1 was one week before his taking over charge
as Commissioner of Police. It is brought to our notice that at
the relevant time i.e. in 2001, the office of the Commissioner of
Police was headed by him and there were 4 Joint
Commisioners of Police, 15 Deputy Commissioners of Police,
64 Assistant Commissioners of Police besides 235 Inspectors
of Police including SHOs of 83 Police Stations, 6 out posts and
under whom there were 803 Sub-Inspectors of police and Spl.
Sub-Inspectors and 9665 Head Constables and Police
Constables. It is further brought to our notice that the City of
Chennai is divided into six districts and each one of them is
headed by Deputy Commissioner of Police of the rank of
Superintendent of Police. It is also clear that when the
information about mentioning wrong statement in the affidavit
filed by Respondent No. 2 against the grant of bail order was
brought to the notice of the appellant on 28.05.2001 by
Deputy Commissioner of Police, namely, Christopher Nelson,
the appellant herein immediately asked him to direct
23
Respondent No.2 to file proper affidavit before the High Court
and clarify the matter by placing proper facts. It is also clear
from the affidavit of the government counsel E. Raja that he
himself drafted the affidavit purely on the instructions of
Respondent No. 2 and that the appellant herein had no
personal knowledge nor did he instruct the counsel to prepare
affidavit or petition to move for cancellation of the bail. As
rightly pointed out by Mr. Ganguli, learned senior counsel for
the appellant, in the later part of the order dated 20.06.2001,
the then Division Bench ordered notice to the Commissioner of
Police (the appellant herein) seeking an explanation about the
serious allegations made by Respondent No. 1 in para 12 of
the contempt petition. Pursuant to the same, the appellant
filed counter affidavit setting out hierarchy of officials
functioning under the Commissioner of Police, Greater
Chennai City, the circumstances under which he was
informed about the incorrect affidavit filed by Respondent No.
2 in the case and the directions issued by him to correct the
mistake in the proceedings relating to the cancellation of bail
of Respondent No. 1. We have already pointed out that the
24
author of the affidavit, namely, Respondent No. 2 has not
stated that it was filed under the instructions of the appellant
herein, in fact, this fact was accepted by the Division Bench.
As a matter of fact, Respondent No. 2 has specifically denied
the allegation that the application for cancellation of bail was
moved under the direction, supervision and knowledge of the
appellant. The two officers, namely, Assistant Commissioner
of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police without
specifying the name of Commissioner of Police have merely
mentioned that they had consulted their "superior officers"
before filing the application for cancellation of bail.
22) Apart from specific information in the form of an affidavit
highlighting his stand before the Division Bench which dealt
with the contempt petition, the appellant had also tendered
unconditional apology which was not even referred to before
passing orders sentencing the appellant herein to
imprisonment. When a city like Chennai is managed by
several police officers from the level of police constable to the
Commissioner of Police, in the absence of specific reference
about consultation with the Commissioner of Police or
25
direction to the two officers, namely, Assistant Commissioner
of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police merely because
both of them attended the office of the Public Prosecutor for
preparation of an application for cancellation of bail based on
the affidavit of the Inspector of Police, it cannot be presumed
and concluded that the appellant was responsible for giving
incorrect information by Respondent No. 2 before the High
Court.
23) We have already pointed out that while dealing with
criminal contempt in terms of Section 2(c) of the Act, strict
procedures are to be adhered. In a series of decisions, this
Court has held that jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for
contempt as also the jurisdiction to punish for contempt are
discretionary with the court. Contempt generally and criminal
contempt certainly is a matter between the court and the
alleged contemnor. No one can compel or demand as of right
initiation of proceedings for contempt. The person filing an
application or petition before the court does not become a
complainant or petitioner in the proceedings. He is just an
informer or relator. His duty ends with the facts being
26
brought to the notice of the court. It is thereafter for the court
to act on such information or not. [Vide Om Prakash Jaiswal
vs. D.K. Mittal, (2000) 3 SCC 171] Further Section 15 of the
Act as well as the Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules
insist that, particularly, for initiation of criminal contempt,
consent of the Advocate General is required. Any deviation
from the prescribed Rules should not be accepted or condoned
lightly and must be deemed to be fatal to the proceedings
taken to initiate action for contempt. In the present case, the
above provisions have not been strictly adhered to and even
the notice issued by the then Division Bench merely sought for
explanation from the appellant about the allegations made by
Respondent No. 1.
24) We have already noted that Rajendra Kumar, Inspector of
Police, (L&O), G-1, Vepery Police Station, Chennai-7 who made
an incorrect/false statement for cancellation of bail has been
rightly punished by the Division Bench of the High Court and
this Court affirmed the same by dismissing his special leave
petition.
27
25) In view of the above discussion and conclusion, the order
of the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 2(c)
of the Act and sentencing him under Section 12 to undergo
simple imprisonment for seven days is set aside. The appeal is
allowed.
.................................................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
...............................................J.
(H.L. GOKHALE)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 15, 2011.
28
