LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Thursday, September 22, 2011

contempt of court =in this suo motu proceeding, the High Court has not made out a case to punish all the appellants under “criminal contempt” in terms of Section 2 (c) read with Section 12 of the Act. =A Committee was constituted by some local persons, who were active in public life, along with lawyers at Jalpaiguri named “Circuit Bench `O’ Sarbik Unnayan Dabi Adyay Samannya Committee, Jalpaiguri” (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”). The Committee had passed a resolution for the formation of a High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and in order to achieve the said purpose to stage Satyagrah in front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. The Members of the Committee put theirresolution into action on 15.12.2006 and started agitation outside the main gate of the District Court premises and put up a rostrum there on which a number of 2 « advocatemmmohan


REPORTABLE


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 339 OF 2007





Anup Bhushan Vohra .... Appellant(s)



Versus



The Registrar General,

High Court of Judicature at Calcutta .... Respondent(s)




WITH


CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 340, 345, 346, 358, 362,

388, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398,

399 and 400 of 2007





J U D G M E N T


P. Sathasivam, J.


1) These appeals, under Section 19 of the Contempt of



Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), are filed



against the common judgment and order dated 02.03.2007





1

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature



at Calcutta in Suo Moto Contempt Motion being Crl.C.P.No.1



of 2007 with C.R.R. No. 187 of 2007 whereby the High Court



found all the appellants guilty of criminal contempt and



sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of



six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and, in default of



payment of fine within a period of one month, to further



undergo simple imprisonment for one month.


2) Brief facts:


a) A Committee was constituted by some local persons, who



were active in public life, along with lawyers at Jalpaiguri



named "Circuit Bench `O' Sarbik Unnayan Dabi Adyay



Samannya Committee, Jalpaiguri" (hereinafter referred to as



"the Committee"). The Committee had passed a resolution for


the formation of a High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and



in order to achieve the said purpose to stage Satyagrah in



front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. The Members of the



Committee put theirresolution into action on 15.12.2006 and



started agitation outside the main gate of the District Court



premises and put up a rostrum there on which a number of





2

persons started sitting in Satyagrah. They prevented the



Judicial Officers including the District Judge, Jalpaiguri to



enter into the Court premises from that day. In order to



overcome the said situation, the District Judge drew attention



of such fact to the Inspector-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station,



Jalpaiguri for extending police help, but no action was taken.



Subsequently, the District Judge brought the matter to the



notice of the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta



for taking necessary steps.



b) After taking note of the situation, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.



S. Sirpurkar, the then Chief Justice of the High Court,



instructed the District Judge through the Registrar General to



seek necessary help and protection from the Superintendent of



Police, Jalpaiguri to take immediate steps so that the Judicial



Officers could enter the Court premises and attend the judicial



work. The District Judge conveyed the said decision of the



High Court to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri but



failed to get any response from him. Subsequently, he



approached the District Magistrate but no action was taken



from his end also. Failing to get any response either from the





3

Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri,



the District Judge sent a note to the then Chief Justice of the



Calcutta High Court who gave direction over phone to the



Director General of Police to take effective steps without any



further delay. The Director General of Police gave assurance



that he would take up the matter with the Home Secretary,



Government of West Bengal and also suggested the Registrar



General to inform the District Judge to write to the District



Magistrate, Jalpaiguri to take steps for ensuring proper



functioning of the Court with a copy to the Superintendent of



Police, Jalpaiguri. On 12.01.2007, the District Judge again



wrote to the District Magistrate. In spite of that, no effective



development had taken place and the Judicial Officers and the



District Judge were unable to enter the court building.



c) In view of the above situation, the District Judge sent a



Fax message to the Registrar General of the High Court



requesting him to take appropriate instructions and



directions. On the basis of the said information, on



15.01.2007, the then Acting Chief Justice of the High Court



sitting in a Bench issued two Suo Motu Rules of Contempt,





4

one, against the 16 persons actively associated with the



aforesaid Committee to show cause as to why they are creating



impediments in functioning of the judiciary in the District



Court by obstructing Judicial Officers from entering into the



Court premises and the other upon the Director General of



Police, Government of West Bengal, the District Magistrate,



Jalpaiguri, the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri and the



Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri to show



cause as to why they remained silent spectators in spite of



repeated directions.



d) On the same day, the Committee withdrew the Satyagrah



and removed the rostrum and cleared the entry gate. In



response to the Rules, the appellants herein filed their



affidavits before the High Court. After examining the



appellants herein, the High Court, by impugned judgment



dated 02.03.2007, imposed simple imprisonment for a term of



six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of



payment of fine within a period of one month, to further



undergo imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the order





5

of the High Court, the appellants/contemnors have filed these



appeals under Section 19 of the Act.



3) Heard M/s Mukul Rohtagi, Kalyan Bandopadhyay, R.



Venkataramani, learned senior counsel, P.C. Sen, Tara



Chandra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.



Pradip Kr. Ghosh and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior



counsel for the respondent-High Court.



4) Since we are going to dispose of all the 18 appeals by this



judgment, the following details pertaining to these appeals are



relevant:



S.No. Name Age Profession Case Number

(Crl. Appeal)


1. Sri Mukulesh Sanyal (Dead) 84 Editor of a No. 395/2007

local weekly

2. Sri Chitta Dey 84 Trade No. 390/2007

Unionist

3. Sri Benoy Kanta Bhowmic 83 Advocate No. 394/2007

4. Sri Samarendra Prosad 78 Business No. 396/2007

Biswas

5. Smt. Pratima Bagchi (Dead) 74 Teacher No. 399/2007

(Retd.)

6. Sri Jiten Das 73 Ex.M.P. No. 362/2007

(Retd.

Professor)

7. Sri Sadhan Bose 73 Business No. 398/2007

8. Sri Amal Roy 64 Political No. 392/2007

Worker

9. Sri Debaprasad Roy 63 M.L.A. No. 358/2007

10. Sri Anup Bhushan Vohra 63 DGP, W.B. No. 339/2007

(D.G.) (Retd.)

11. Sri Prasanta Chandra 58 Dy. S.P., No. 346/2007

(Inspector-in-Charge) Murshidabad




6

12. Sri Subhas Kumar Dutta 57 Teacher No. 393/2007

13. Sri Rabindra Narayan 57 Business No. 400/2007

Chowdhury

14. Sri Somnath Pal 46 Business No. 388/2007



15. Sri Sanjoy Chakraborty 44 Secretary of No. 397/2007

an NGO

16. Sri Prabal Raha 40 Social No. 391/2007

worker

17. Sri Tripurari (S.P.) 39 D.C. Central No. 345/2007

18. Sri R. Ranjit 38 D.M., No. 340/2007

Jalpaiguri,

W.B.




5) Since all the appellants were proceeded for criminal



contempt under the Act, it is useful to refer the relevant



provisions applicable for disposal of these appeals. Section 2



(c) of the Act defines "criminal contempt" which reads as



under:



"2.(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, or 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;"



Section 12 of the Act provides punishment for contempt of



court. The procedure to be followed has been dealt with in the



Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975. It is



7

settled law that the law of contempt must be strictly



interpreted and complied with before any person can be



committed for contempt.



6) In Muthu Karuppan vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & Anr.,



AIR 2011 SC 1645 = (2011) 5 SCC 496, this Court, while



considering the criminal contempt held that the court should



be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the



charge and further held that the punishment cannot be



imposed on mere probabilities and the court can not punish



the alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on



conjectures and surmises. How the criminal contempt has to



be proceeded with has been explained in para 9, which reads



as follows:




"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 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."





8

In para 23, it was further held that 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.



7) With this background, let us analyse whether the



appellants have committed criminal contempt in terms of



Section 2(c) of the Act and whether the High Court is justified



in imposing simple imprisonment for a term of six months



with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and, in default, to further



undergo simple imprisonment for one month.



8) The impugned order of the Division Bench shows that



these appellants were punished for criminal contempt not only



on the ground that they prevented the Judicial Officers



including the District Judge and other staff members from



entering into the District Court at Jalpaiguri, but also on the



ground of alleged serious lapses/inaction on their part. It is



useful to refer the findings recorded by the Division Bench



regarding the role and part played by the appellants which are



as under:-



"We, therefore, unhesitantly come to the conclusion

that the Director-General of the Police, the District





9

Magistrate of the District, the District Superintendent of the

Police and the Inspector-in-charge of the local Police Station

have committed not only the Criminal Contempt of the

Judges Court in the District of Jalpaiguri by deliberately

taking no action against the agitators resulting in

interference with due Administration of Justice in the said

District and at the same time the Director-General of Police

has in addition to that also committed further contempt of

this Court by disobeying the order of the then Chief Justice

to take immediate step for restoration of the function of

Judiciary in the said District.



We disbelieve the statements of the three Officers of

the District Administration that the learned District Judge

never sought for Police assistance and on the other hand,

supported the agitators. In his affidavit, the District

Magistrate was constrained to admit that at least on

January 10, 2007 the learned District Judge-in-Charge in

writing asked for his assistance but in spite of such fact, he

did not find any time to take appropriate step till January

15, 2007, the day on which we issued the Rules and directed

the Chief Secretary to take appropriate step for restoration of

the functions of Judiciary in the District. Moreover, the fact

that a G.D. was lodged complaining obstruction to the entry

of the employees of the Court was sufficient for taking action

to see the Judiciary could function in the District in

accordance with the Constitution of India and further

request for Police help at the instance of the learned District

Judge was unnecessary. The justification sought to be given

that the agitation was peaceful was insignificant in the fact

of the present case in view of the fact that the question of

"breach of peace" arises if there is a resistance at the

instance of an opposition group. The Judges are not

expected to wrestle with those agitators by taking the law in

their own hands of the purpose of entering the Court

premises. They complied with the law of the land by drawing

attention of the local Police by lodging a G.D. through an

employee of the Court and at the same time, it has been well

established from the materials on record that the local

administration was quite alive to the situation that due to

the purported "Satyagraha" by staging agitation and raising

a rostrum at the main entrance gate of the Court premises,

there was interference with due Administration of Justice

and in such circumstances, it was the duty of the local

administration to take step of their own once they found

commission of a cognizable offence."





1

9) As stated in the earlier paras, a Committee constituted of



some local persons, who were active in public life, along with



the lawyers at Jalpaiguri, had passed certain resolutions to



stage Satyagrah for the formation of High Court Circuit Bench



in front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. As a follow-up



action, the Members of the Committee put their resolution into



action on 15.12.2006 outside one of the two gates of the



District Court premises that is the main gate and put up a



rostrum there on which a number of persons started sitting in



Satyagrah.



10) It is the stand of the police that on being aware of the



said resolution of the Committee, on 15.12.2006, a police



picket consisting of three officers and four constables was



deployed under Sub-inspector Dilip Kumar Sen at the place of



Satyagrah to watch and monitor the law and order situation.



It was pointed out that the Sub-inspector Dilip Kumar Sen



noted the above details in the General Diary (GD) of Kotwali



P.S., under GDE No. 899 dated 15.12.2006 recording that the



Judicial Officers and the staff of the District Court had arrived



at the court premises, but they were persuaded by the





1

members of the Committee not to enter into the Court. The



officer has also recorded that the Judicial Officers did not ask



the police for help to enter into the court. Mr. Rohtagi, learned



senior counsel appearing for the appellant- Anup Bhushan



Vohra, former Director General of Police in Criminal Appeal



No. 339 of 2007 has brought to our notice a true extract of GD



entry made on 15.12.2006 under GDE No. 899 which reads as



under:-



"It is important to add here that each of the Judges and

Magistrates (total of 11) of the said District Court are

provided with one armed policemen and two other security

guards as normal security to enable them to fulfill the duties

of their office: i.e. the Judges and Magistrates of the District

Court always had 27 security guards including 9 armed

guards."



The further information relates to GD entry made on



19.12.2006 under GDE No. 1152, in which the S.I. detailed for



duty at the District Court recorded that with force he was



present at the main gate of the court premises and at 1050



hrs. when some of the Judicial Officers had arrived at the



main gate of the District Court, they were requested "with



folded hands" by the agitating Members of the Committee not



to enter into the court. The Judicial Officers, thereafter,



returned back. The S.I. and his force were standing at the



1

spot, but there was no order/request by the Judicial Officers



for help to enter into the court. It is also pointed out that in



all those days, there was no pushing or cajoling, no



threatening gestures made, no law and order problem and no



circumstance was created for the police to interfere using



force.



11) Apart from the GD entries made in those dates, similar



effect GD entries were made at the local police station by the



concerned police officials who were detailed with force for duty



at the District Court on 22.12.2006, 26.12.2006, 27.12.2006,



31.12.2006, 02.01.2007 and 05.01.2007 under GDE Nos.



1338, 1620, 1690, 1916, 91 and 275 respectively. All those



GD entries are placed before us in the form of annexures. By



pointing out these details, learned senior counsel appearing



for the appellants pointed out that there was no intimation by



the High Court till 05.01.2007. They also highlighted that at



no point of time, there was any law and order problem and



there was no coercion exercised by any of those conducting



Satyagrah. On every single day from 15.12.2006 to



05.01.2007, whenever Judicial Officers of the District Court,





1

Jalpaiguri attempted to enter into the Court premises, they



were requested by the persons sitting in Satyagrah not to



enter the court premises and thereupon the Judges and the



officials and the staff voluntarily complied with and went back.



12) From the materials placed on record, it is seen that only



on 05.01.2007, the Registrar General of the Calcutta High



Court, for the first time, spoke over phone to Shri Anup



Bhushan Vohra, DGP to enquire whether he knew about the



problem which was "deteriorating" as no work was taking



place in the Court at Jalpaiguri. In the affidavit filed by Mr.



Vohra, it is stated that the Registrar General then handed over



the phone to the then Chief Justice of the High Court - Hon'ble



Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, who directed him to "keep the



situation under watch". The affidavit further shows that the



appellant Vohra assured the then Hon'ble Chief Justice that



he would speak to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri and



the Home Secretary of the State. According to him, as assured



to the then Chief Justice, he informed both the officers. He



also mentioned that this was not done in writing, but orally



over phone to Mr. Prasad Ray, Home Secretary and Mr.





1

Tripurari, Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri. The assertion



of the DGP in the form of an affidavit shows that there was no



order by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice either on the



administrative side or on the judicial side but only over phone



he was asked to watch the situation and, in turn, he also



assured him as well as intimated the same to the Home



Secretary and Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri. In those



circumstances and in view of the the materials placed by the



DGP, the conclusion of the Division Bench that there was an



"order" by the then Chief Justice is factually incorrect.



13) It is brought to our notice that for the first time, that is,



on 09.01.2007, the District Judge communicated to the



Registrar General of the High Court regarding cessation of



work by the Members of the Local Bar Association, Jalpaiguri



and the Committee for Circuit Bench of the High Court at



Calcutta. The contents of the said letter are also relevant,



which reads as under:




"To

The Registrar General,

High Court, Appellate Side,

Calcutta.



Dated : the 9th January, 2007.





1

Sub: Cease work by the members of the Local Bar

Association, Jalpaiguri and Samannyay Committee for

Circuit Bench of the Hon'ble Court at Calcutta.



Sir,

With due respect, I am to inform that today i.e., on

9.1.07 I, along with all Judicial Officers, had been to the

Court but at the entrance gate of the Court premises we

were obstructed to enter into the premises.

I held discussion with the agitating members and

insisted that we should be allowed to enter into the premises

for smooth functioning of the judicial administration but it

was impressed by the agitating members of the Samannyay

Committee, mainly, along with member of local bar that

when the door for discussion is open we should

communicate the Hon'ble Court that the impasse can only

be resolved by discussion from and on behalf of the Hon'ble

Court. The agitating members did not agree to my proposal

to allow us to enter into the premises

The recent resolution, enclosed herewith, will show

that they have taken up different agitation programs till

15.1.07 copy of which is enclosed herewith. When

persuasion failed, we have come to the chamber and office of

the District Judge at his bungalow where all the members of

the office staff have also came.

This is for your information and we are soliciting

necessary instruction from your honour's end.



Yours faithfully,




(S. Bhattacharjee)

Add District Judge, 1st Court and

District Judge-in-Charge,

Jalpaiguri.



Memo No. 17/G Dated: 9.1.07.



Copy forwarded to the Superintendent of Police,

Jalpaiguri, for information and necessary action.



Sd/-(S. Bhattacharjee)





1

Add District Judge, 1st Court and

District Judge-in-Charge,

Jalpaiguri."



It was highlighted that no immediate response was received by



the District Judge from the Registrar General, particularly, as



to the contents of his letter.



14) However, on 10.01.2007, it was pointed out that for the



first time the Addl. District Judge/District Judge-in-Charge



Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, wrote directly to the District Magistrate



Mr. R. Ranjit (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2007)



requesting him to look into the matter and make endeavour to



resolve the crisis so that the Judges could enter into the court



premises to discharge their functions. The GD entry made on



10.01.2007 under No. 614 recorded that police force was



present at the main gate of the District Court from 1000 hrs.



to 1300 hrs. and the Judicial Officers had come in some



vehicles and after talking to the Members of the Committee,



who with folded hands requested them not to enter into the



court, they left the place. It was emphasised that even on this



day, there was no request from the Judicial Officers to the



police to help them enter into the court.





1

15) The GD entry made on 13.01.2007 under No. 795 was



pressed into service which shows that a strong police



arrangement was made at the District Court where Shri T.K.



Das Addl. Superintendent of Police (HQ), Shri Swapan Kumar



Das, Dy. Superintendent of Police (HQ) and Shri David Ivan



Lepcha had supervised the duty and Shri Ashok Das,



Executive Magistrate, was also present. It was pointed out



that in the afternoon of 13.01.2007, the District Magistrate,



the Superintendent of Police and other officers convened a



meeting at the Circuit House with the Members of the



Committee and had told them in no uncertain terms that



administration will not wait for any "amicable settlement" any



further and would resort to applying force on 15.01.2007 to



ensure proper functioning of the court. This was conveyed



over phone to the District Judge and it was also informed to



him that heavy police arrangement would again be made on



15.01.2007 onwards to ensure that Judges and Magistrates



may enter into the court without any hindrance. This was



also stated in the GD Entry No. 961 dated 15.01.2007. When



the Addl. District Judge/District Judge-in-Charge arrived at





1

the court gate at 1030 hrs., he was requested by the Addl. SP



to enter into the court premises, but after seeing a large



gathering of the Members of the Committee and their



sympathisers, the District Judge decided not to enter the court



and returned back. It was recorded in the said GD entry that



the Members of the Committee and their sympathisers were



successfully persuaded to remove the rostrum from the gate of



the court premises, which they themselves removed. The



court gate was opened by 1530 hrs., and the District Judge



was also intimated about the same. Apart from the above



information, it was also pointed out that between 15.12.2006,



the day from which the Committee started agitation



to15.01.2007 when they called off the agitation, all



bail/custody matters were dealt with by the



Judges/Magistrates at their official residences in Jalpaiguri,



arrested accused persons were produced by the police before



them and in total 192 such cases were dealt with by the



Magistrates at their residences during the said period, namely,



15.12.2006 to 15.01.2007.





1

16) Apart from the above details, Mr. Vohra has also



highlighted that he was informed of the importance of the



situation only on 05.01.2007 and no specific



information/report was received before this date from any



State or Central Government Agency or officer about the same.



He asserted that he acted promptly on or after 05.01.2007,



briefing the Home Secretary of the State, Superintendent of



Police, Jalpaiguri.



17) In the meantime, it was pointed out that the then Chief



Justice of the High Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar



was elevated to the Supreme Court and he took oath on



12.01.2007 and on 15.01.2007, the then Acting Chief Justice -



Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya, sitting in a Bench Suo



Motu issued two Rules to the following effect.



"The learned Registrar General of this Court has drawn

attention of this Court to the fact that due to agitation

started by the "Circuit Bench 'O' Sarbik Unnyayan Dabi

Adyay Samannaya Committee, Jalpaiguri," the Judicial

Officers in the District of Jalpaiguri including the learned

District Judge, Jalpaiguri, are unable to enter into the Court

premises from December 15, 2006.



Office of the learned District Judge immediately drew

attention of such fact to the Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali

Police Station, Jalpaiguri Sadar, but no action was taken.

Subsequently, the learned District Judge brought the matter

to the notice of the learned Registrar General of this Court,

who in terms of the order by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice





2

of this Court, instructed the learned District Judge to ask

the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri to take immediate

action, so that the Judicial Officers can enter into the Court

premises for doing their duties.



Although the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri

conveyed the decision of this Court to the Superintendent of

Police, Jalpaiguri, so that the Judicial Officers can enter into

the Court building and function, the Superintendent of

Police, Jalpaiguri paid deaf ears to the request of the learned

District Judge. Subsequently, the learned District Judge was

directed to approach the District Magistrate of the District,

so that the judiciary in the District can function. In spite of

such communication, no action was taken from the end of

the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.



It appears from the note given by the learned Registrar

General of this Court, that on January 5, 2007, the then

Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court directed the Director

General of Police, West Bengal over phone to ensure proper

functioning of the Jalpaiguri Court by taking effective steps

without further delay and as a follow up action, the learned

Registrar General also talked to the Director General of

Police, West Bengal and enquired as to what effective steps

had been taken for bringing back the normal situation, so

that the learned District Judge's Court could function

properly.



The Director General of Police, however, informed the

learned Registrar General of this Court that he would take

up the matter with the Home Secretary, Government of West

Bengal and in the meantime, the learned District Judge,

Jalpaiguri should be asked to write to the District

Magistrate, Jalpaiguri requesting him to take steps for

ensuring proper functioning of the Courts in Jalpaiguri with

a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri.



As pointed out earlier, in spite of written

communication given by the learned District Judge to the

District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, till today the Judges in the

District Judge's Court at Jalpaiguri are unable to enter into

the Court building.



It appears from the various papers submitted by the

learned District Judge through fax message to the learned

Registrar General of this Court that the "Circuit Bench 'O'

Sarbik Unnayayan Dabi Adyay Samannaya Committee,




2

Jalpaiguri" took a resolution of obstructing the ingress and

egress to the Court building by various resolutions taken

from time to time. From the resolution allegedly taken on

December 23, 2006 which has been sent to the learned

Registrar General of this Court by the learned District Judge

concerned, it appears that in a meeting held at Nababbari

premises the following persons participated and

unanimously took a resolution to continue with the

agitation:



(1) Sri Mukulesh Sanyal, President;



(2) Sri Sri Jiten Das, Ex. M.P. (C.P.M.);



(3) Sri Sri Debaprasad Roy, M.L.A. (Congress);



(4) Smt. Pratima Bagchi (R.S.P.):



(5) Sri Prabal Saha (Forward Block);



(6) Sri Pabitra Bhattacharyya (C.P.I.);



(7) Sri Somenath Pal (T.M.C.);



(8) Sri Amal Roy (C.P.I.M.L.);



(9) Sri Subhas Kumar Dutta, C.P.I.M.L. (Liberation);



(10) Sri Rabindra Lal Chakraborty (B.J.P.);



(11) Sri Chittaq De (Convenor, Co-ordination Committee of

Plantation Works);



(12) Sri Sadhan Bose (Merchant Association);



(13) Sri Sarnarendra Prasad Biswas (North Bengal Chamber

of Commerce);



(14) Sri Biswajit Das (Federation of Chamber of Commerce,

Siliguri);



(15) Sri Sanjoy Chakraborty (Jalpaiguri Welfare

Organisation).



It further appears from the resolution of the meeting

dated December 18, 2006 of the said "Jalpaiguri 'O' Sarbik

Unnyayan Dabi Adyay Samannaya Committee" that one Sri




2

Benoy Kanta Bhowmick, presided over as President,

supported the said illegal act of the Committee.



In our view, the aforesaid act on the part of those

persons abovenamed, acting on behalf of the said

Committee, has resulted in constitutional breakdown in the

District of Jalpaiguri, as a result, the citizens of Jalpaiguri

District are immensely prejudiced and such act interferes

with and obstructs administration of justice in the said

District.



We are also prima facie convinced that inaction on the

part of the Director General of Police, West Bengal, District

Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, the Superintendent of Police,

Jalpaiguri and I.C., Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri Sadar

amounts to aiding and abetting the members of the said

Committee, as a result of which, the judiciary is unable to

function in that District for the last one month and all those

persons are prima facie guilty of criminal contempt of a

serious nature.



Accordingly, let a Rule of contempt be issued calling

upon all those 15 persons and Sri Benoy Kanta Bhowrnick,

abovenamed, to show cause why they should not be

penalised or otherwise dealt with for committing criminal

contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 by creating impediment in functioning the

judiciary in the District of Jalpaiguri for the last one month

by restraining the Judicial Officers from entering into the

Court building.



Similarly, a Rule be also issued upon the Director

General of Police, West Bengal, District Magistrate,

Jalpaiguri, Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri, Inspector-

in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri Sadar to show

cause why they should not be penalised or otherwise dealt

with for aiding and abetting the aforesaid criminal contempt

by remaining as silent spectators in spite of repeated

directions not only given by the learned District Judge of the

District, but also by the learned Registrar General and the

former Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court.



Let these Rules be immediately served upon all the

concerns through the Chief Secretary, Government of West

Bengal by tomorrow.





2

The Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, is

directed to communicate to this Court what action the

District Administration or the State Administration has

taken for removing the impediments creating by those

persons.



Having regard to the serious nature of a criminal

contempt prima facie found by this Court, we direct the

Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal to see that in

course of this day proper step is taken, so that the learned

District Judge and all the Judicial Officers including the staff

of the District Court may enter into the building and

function normally.



The Chief Secretary will further ensure that no

obstruction takes place in the matter of proper functioning of

the Court in any part of the said District.



Office is directed to see that this order is

communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of West

Bengal by 2 p.m. of this day.



Let Rules be also issued by the office in course of this

day.



The Rules are returnable on January 19, 2007 at

10.30 a.m.



On the returnable date, the alleged contemnors above

named are directed to be present in Court at 10.30 a.m."




18) Pursuant to the issuance of the above Rules, the DGP-



Mr. Vohra and other three officials of the State Government



i.e., the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and



Inspector in-Charge, Kotwali P.S. Jalpaiguri also filed separate



affidavits highlighting their stand. Apart from the affidavit



filed by the Inspector in-Charge of Kotwali P.S., copies of the





2

entries made in the GD (which we referred in the earlier paras)



maintained at the said P.S. were annexed to the affidavit.



19) It is further seen that all the officials including the DGP



were examined by the High Court while hearing the contempt



petition and their depositions were recorded. We were also



taken through their depositions and these were mostly in the



nature of cross-examination. Learned senior counsel



appearing for the DGP has highlighted even the copies of fax



messages sent by the District Judge to the Registrar General



of the High Court on various dates which were supplied to him



after cross examination by the court. Even otherwise, as



rightly pointed out that in none of the fax messages, the



Judges/Magistrates had requested the police for help to



neither enter into the court nor do the fax messages record



that they went back to their residences voluntarily on being



requested by the agitators. The impugned order of the High



Court also shows that apart from the official witnesses, the



other parties were also heard on 16.02.2007 by the Bench and



ultimately the impugned order was passed on 02.03.2007



convicting the appellants for criminal contempt of court and





2

sentencing them to simple imprisonment for a term of six



months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.





20) Though the High Court has concluded that the above-



mentioned government officials had "aided and abetted" the



perpetrators to agitation, as rightly pointed out by the learned



senior counsel for the appellants, there is no material/basis



for such conclusion. We have already pointed out that from



the GD entries on various dates, i.e., from 15.12.2006 till



15.01.2007, on all working days, whenever the Judicial



Officers reach the main gate of the District Court, the



organisers made a request with folded hands not to enter into



the court premises and by their persuasion, the Judicial



Officers returned to their homes. We have also noted that on



any day neither the District Judge nor any other Judicial



Officers directed the District Magistrate or the police officers



present in the premises to remove all those persons. On the



other hand, till the agitation was called off on 15.01.2007, the



agitation was entirely peaceful and there was no law and order



problem, sufficient police force was stationed and that the





2

Members of the Committee and their sympathisers kept



requesting the District Judge/Magistrates and the officials and



staff with folded hands not to enter the courts in view of their



demand for establishment of the High Court Circuit Bench



and the District Judge/Judicial Officers and the staff



voluntarily returned home and did not ask the police to help



them get into the court premises. We have already pointed out



the assertion made in the form of an affidavit by the DGP - Mr.



Vohra that when the then Chief Justice (Hon'ble Mr. Justice



V.S. Sirpurkar) talked to him over phone, he did not order or



direct him to remove the agitators by force but only directed



him "to monitor the situation". There is no contra assertion or



statement from the side of the High Court through Registrar



General, who was supposed to be present when the then



Hon'ble Chief Justice discussed with the DGP over phone.



21) We are conscious of the fact that it is the responsibility of



the State Administration to see that courts function on all



working days without any hindrance. The administration of



justice should never be stalled at the instance of anyone



including the members of the bar even for any cause.





2

However, we have already noted that though the said



Committee started Satyagrah in front of the District Court as



early as on 15.12.2006 till 05.01.2007, no request from the



District Judge or from the Registrar General for removal of



rostrum put up in front of the gate and clearing the



agitators/satyagrahis who comprises not only members of the



bar, legislature, NGOs, persons from media and



representatives from different walks of life was made. We have



already observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the



assertion of the DGP Mr. Vohra about the conversation made



by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and it is the definite case of



the DGP that he was asked "to monitor the situation" and



"keep a watch over the development". He asserted that there



was no direction either from the then Chief Justice or from the



Registrar General for taking appropriate action against the



agitators.



22) We are also satisfied that in none of the fax messages



sent by the District Judge to the Registrar General, there was



even a whisper that the Judges at the District Court had



asked for any police help and there was no grievance that





2

police help was not made available to the Judges. In the facts



and materials placed and demonstrated, we are of the view



that the conclusion of the High Court that the appellants,



more particularly, government officials were responsible for



"aiding and abetting the agitators by non-action" cannot be



accepted.



23) We are also satisfied from the materials placed that the



police force was present at the gate of the District Court on all



days except Sundays and holidays to supervise law and order



situation and to assist the Judges and Judicial Officers, the



fact remains that the District Judge and the Judicial Officers



never asked for any police help for their entry into the court



premises on all days starting from 15.12.2006 ending with



15.01.2007 and all of them acceded to the humble request



made by the agitators and returned home. It is true that on



10.01.2007, the District Judge and the Judicial Officers



requested the District Magistrate to take sincere efforts to



resolve the crisis so that they may enter into the court



premises and discharge judicial functions.





2

24) Another aspect with which we are unable to accept the



conclusion of the Division Bench relates to the fact that fax



messages were sent from the office of the District Magistrate.



On this assumption, the Division Bench concluded that the



District Magistrate himself had knowledge about the contents



of the fax messages. It was explained that fax messages were



sent from one of the nine fax machines installed at different



rooms at the premises of the Office of the District Magistrate



and, as rightly pointed out, this does not necessarily mean



that the District Magistrate had knowledge about the matter of



the contents. Merely because the fax machines available at



the office of the District Magistrate were utilised, it cannot be



presumed that the District Magistrate could have noted the



contents. The said assumption cannot be accepted without



any further material.



25) It is true that several litigants might have suffered due to



the non-functioning of the courts, however, it is brought to our



notice that the concerned Magistrates were holding court at



their residences and chambers to deal with all urgent matters





3

and 192 cases were dealt with by different Magistrates during



the period 15.12.2006 to 15.01.2007.



26) We are also satisfied that there was no wrongful restraint



on the Judges and Judicial Officers of the District Court as is



evident from the GD entries wherein it was recorded that the



Judges and Judicial Officers had acceded to the request of the



agitators and restrained themselves from entering the court



premises though police force was present at the spot to



facilitate their entry as and when directed.



27) Though the Division Bench recorded a finding in the



impugned judgment that because of the obstruction, the



administration of justice in the District Court, Jalpaiguri was



obstructed for a month in spite of specific request of District



Judge, it was brought to our notice (which we have already



noted in the earlier paras) that the District Judge for the first



time on 10.01.2007 had communicated to the District



Magistrate with a request to make endeavour to resolve the



crisis and even in that communication there was no mention



of using police force to remove the agitators by force. It is also



evident that Judges of the District Court wanted a peaceful





3

solution and without use of force although in the fax messages



sent by the District Magistrate to the Registrar General, it was



complained that the Judges in the District Court were not



allowed to enter into the court premises.



28) We are also satisfied that there is no acceptable material



in holding that the officials committed criminal contempt of



the Judges in the District of Jalpaiguri by deliberately taking



no action against the agitators resulting in interference with



the due administration of justice. If we analyse the entire



materials including their statements, affidavits, GD entries,



fax messages, correspondence between District Judge and



Registrar General and District Magistrate, it cannot be



concluded that the officials deliberately abstained from taking



any action against the agitators.



29) As mentioned above, in the absence of any order either



on the judicial side by the then Chief Justice or any



communication and direction through the Registrar General



and in view of the assertion of DGP in the form of an affidavit



about the conversation made by the then Chief Justice and



himself, the contrary conclusion arrived at by the Division





3

Bench holding that the DGP has disobeyed the order of the



then Chief Justice to take immediate step for restoration of



functioning of the judiciary in the District cannot be accepted.



30) In a matter of this nature, when the agitation started on



15.12.2006 by way of a Committee comprising persons from



different walks of life including members of the bar, media,



business community, NGOs, elected representatives etc, it is



but proper for the High Court to intervene at the earliest point



of time by sending Administrative/Port-folio Judge or the



Registrar General to the spot. Such recourse was admittedly



not resorted to. Till 05.01.2007, no communication or any



effort was made by the Registrar General to the District



administration, particularly, officers concerned and to the



District Magistrate. Even the District Judge did not make any



request or issued directions for removal of the agitators who



were conducting Satyagrah in a peaceful manner. We have



already pointed out that every day on their request, all the



Judicial Officers returned home to avoid any confrontation



with the members of the bar and the Committee comprising



persons from different walks of life.





3

31) In the earlier part of our order, we have highlighted that



the allegations against all the appellants relate to criminal



contempt. Though the High Court has heard certain officials,



it is the grievance of the appellants that proper procedure was



not followed in all their cases. In other words, "fair procedure"



provided for "criminal contempt" had not been adhered to by



the High Court. It is also their grievance that even no formal



charge was framed. Inasmuch as the matter pertains to



criminal contempt, the issue is to be proved beyond



reasonable doubt. Admittedly, the District Judge did not file



any affidavit highlighting his stand and steps taken, if any,



even after knowing the claim of the appellants, particularly,



with reference to the various GD entries and their specific



stand. We are also satisfied that that charge against the



criminal contempt has not been made out in the manner



known to law.



32) It is also brought to our notice that all the appellants



filed separate affidavits explaining their stand and tendered



unconditional apology at the earliest point of time.



Considering the nature of the demand which, according to





3

them, the High Court itself has passed a resolution acceding



for the formation of the High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri



and other relevant materials, the Division Bench ought to have



accepted the affidavits tendering apology. In fact, the



explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act enables



the court to accept the apology if the same is bona fide and



discharge the accused accordingly. Unfortunately, even such



recourse was not followed by the High Court. In appropriate



case, the acceptability of unconditional apology and regret has



been explained by this Court in O.P. Sharma & Ors. vs. High


Court of Punjab & Haryana, 2011 (5) Scale 518 = (2011) 6


SCC 86. Considering the fact that the members of the bar



who misbehaved with the court by raising slogans and



realizing their mistake, dignity of the court and conduct of the



legal profession tendered unconditional apology first before the



Judge before whom the unfortunate incident had occurred,



before the High Court where suo motu contempt was initiated



and before this Court by filing affidavits. Expressing



unconditional apology and regret with an undertaking that



they would maintain good behaviour in future and if the same





3

is at the earliest point of time and bona fide, the Courts have



to accept the same. In view of the language used in "proviso"



and "explanation" appended to Section 12(1) of the Act, this



Court accepted the affidavits filed by all the appellants in O.P.


Sharma (supra) and discharged all of them from the charges


leveled against them.



33) In Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs. State of Uttar


Pradesh, (2011) 7 SCC 776, this Court reiterated the


principles laid down in O.P. Sharma (supra) with regard to



tendering unconditional apology and acceptance of the same.



34) Finally, it is worthwhile to refer to a Full Bench decision



of the Bombay High Court in Mohandas Karamchand


Gandhi and Anr., AIR 1920 Bombay 175. It was an appeal


filed against Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Mahadev



Haribhai Desai, who were the Editor and Publisher



respectively of a newspaper called `Young India'. They were



charged with contempt of Court for publishing in that



newspaper, on 6th August, 1919, a letter dated 22nd April, 1919



written by the District Judge of Ahmedabad to the Registrar of



the High Court and also with publishing comments on that





3

letter. The gist of the charge was that the letter in question



was a private official letter forming part of certain proceedings



then pending in this Court and that the comments which both



of them made in their newspaper were comments on that



pending case. Ultimately, this Court, after stating that the



same ought not to have been published, reprimanded them.



Though we are not concerned about the factual details and the



ultimate decision, the following observation relating to power



of the Court in contempt proceedings and how the same to be



applied had been reiterated at page 180 which reads as under:



".........We have large powers and, in appropriate cases, can

commit offenders to prison for such period as we think fit

and can impose fines of such amount as we may judge right.

But just as our powers are large, so ought we, I think, to use

them with discretion and with moderation remembering that

the only object we have in view is to enforce the due

administration of justice for the public benefit."



35) It is not in dispute that all the appellants have filed



separate affidavits tendering unconditional apology at the



earliest point of time before the High Court. We are satisfied



that no case has been made out for criminal contempt against



the appellants and there is nothing wrong in accepting their



unconditional apology and request which was made at the



earliest point of time.




3

36) Keeping the above principles and factual details as



mentioned in earlier paras in mind, we pass the following



order:



In view of the above discussion and abundant materials,



we are satisfied that in this suo motu proceeding, the High



Court has not made out a case to punish all the appellants



under "criminal contempt" in terms of Section 2 (c) read with



Section 12 of the Act. We were informed that the appellant-



Mukulesh Sanyal in Criminal Appeal No. 395 0f 2007 and



appellant-Smt. Pratima Bagchi in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of



2007 have been reported dead. Thus these two appeals filed



by them stand abated. The conviction and sentence on the



other appellants are set aside and all of them are discharged



from the charges leveled against them. All the appeals are



allowed.



..........................................J.

(P. SATHASIVAM)




..........................................J.

NEW DELHI; (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

SEPTEMBER 16, 2011.





3





contempt of court =in this suo motu proceeding, the High Court has not made out a case to punish all the appellants under “criminal contempt” in terms of Section 2 (c) read with Section 12 of the Act. =A Committee was constituted by some local persons, who were active in public life, along with lawyers at Jalpaiguri named “Circuit Bench `O’ Sarbik Unnayan Dabi Adyay Samannya Committee, Jalpaiguri” (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”). The Committee had passed a resolution for the formation of a High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and in order to achieve the said purpose to stage Satyagrah in front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. The Members of the Committee put theirresolution into action on 15.12.2006 and started agitation outside the main gate of the District Court premises and put up a rostrum there on which a number of 2 « advocatemmmohan