Delhi High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta on 31 August, 2017
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Siddharth Mridul, Najmi Waziri
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.08.2017
+ CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate (Amicus
Curiae) with Mr. Varun Goswami, Amicus Curiae
along with Mr. Karan Khanuja, Ms. Kanika
Sondhi and Mr. Simran Mehta, Advs.
Versus
RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Sr. Advocate (Amicus
Curiae).
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
1. This case concerns the conduct of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta,
respondent herein against whom the criminal contempt proceedings were
initiated. On 12.02.2015, following orders were passed:
"...... 1. On 15.01.2015, this Court had noted by its order
that Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta's intervention application,
being No.5779/2008 was rejected. He had, however, sent
an e-mail to counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue,
levelling several allegations which were shown to the
Court. In the course of hearing, the Court pointed this out
to Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who stated that he would be
withdrawing the allegations levelled against the Revenue's
counsel. Having regard to this development, the Court
recorded on 15.01.2015 as follows:
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 1 of 35
"2. Learned counsel submitted that in the light of
these allegations they wish for further
clarification from CBDT
3. Mr. Gupta is present in Court and he states
that he would withdraw the allegations and that
he may be permitted to address arguments in the
Court instead."
2. Sh. Gupta had, in the meanwhile, sent a detailed fax to
this Court in respect of these pending matters which runs
into 100 pages. The Court had, however, not proceeded
with that or made any adverse order at that stage given the
fact that Sh. Gupta assured the Court that the allegations
would be withdrawn. After the conclusion of hearing, on
09.02.2015, Sh. Gupta filed yet another affidavit titled as
"Intervener Affidavit". In the affidavit, after stating that
the intervener informed this Court in the hearing that the
Income Tax Department had "deliberately presented weak
case", and quoting the order dated 16.10.2014, the
following averments were made:
"F. However, no "no joint flow chart" was
submitted, despite Income Tax official has
submitted documents given by Intervener to them.
(As stated in point D above.)
G. Nothing is done to protect Government interest
by giving factual facts to Honourable Court.
However, there are six pages (unsigned and
without detail of who is submitting it, to
Honourable Court) in ITA 1428/2006 CIT Vs.
Escorts Limited. These pages, completely ignored
the facts in favour of tax department.
H. Reason of submitted it (loose six - unsigned
pages/documents) in open court, without
signature, is that in future, they completely disown
these six pages and even removed after wards
from Court Records.
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 2 of 35
I. Removing of documents after Court Decision
was done in others cases of Escorts Limited/Dr.
Naresh Trehan - key man Insurance tax evasion
cases. (These cases are decided in favour of Tax
Payers, by stating that tax payers are allowed Tax
planning. In this case Key-man Insurance Booklet
was removed, which prove assignment was illegal.
Tax department had also not informed, other
illegality involved (like fund siphoning by key
person by transferring company assets below their
fair value (without shareholder permission).
Illegal acts are not called Tax planning). In ITA
398/2009 and ITA 484/2009 index Page and Page
3-4 of affidavit (relevant Para 5 Start from Page 3
and ends on Page 4 signed by Sr. Standing
Counsel Mr. N.P. Sahni and Jr. Standing Counsel
Mr. Ruchesh Sinha. To help the tax payer, terms
was used incomplete assignment instead of
illegal assignment. And enclosed At Page 46-48.
List of Key man insurances cases lost is given on
Page 54 of affidavit. Now above cases, are
pending in the Supreme Court (without giving
correct fact).
J. Reason (of giving unsigned document) is
simple, both tax payers and tax official does not
want to face Contempt proceeding for deliberately
misleading (by incorrect facts) Honourable Court.
K. Above inaction, force Intervener, to informed,
all the concerned party about deliberate
weakening of case by tax officials/their
representative and forgery by tax payers by letter
dated 14/1/2015 (forwarding of letter is enclosed
As page 49-55 of affidavit).
L. Honourable Court has ample power to take
necessary actions to protect Justice and protect
Public interest of Government (to gets it
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 3 of 35
legitimate Taxes). No further actions is necessary
from my side.
M. By this intervener affidavit, I withdraw
unconditionally my express statement about
involvement of Standing Counsel in weakening the
department case as directed by Honourable
Court.
Statement in my letter
Please refer to above mentioned cases, there is
collusion between Tax payers and Government
Department officers (including their Standing
Counsel/Advocate), they had deliberately
presented weak case. So that Government lose
these cases for the benefits of Tax payers and for
getting bribe for themselves."
3. The affidavit further levels others allegations in paras 5,
6 and 7 against various officials.
In the affidavit, Sh. Gupta further deposed as follows:
"8. Now, kindly see actions of Tax official in
these cases. Detail of deliberate wrong actions by
Income tax official
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
C. Summarized Brief Particulars of the case is
already given to Court vide letter/e-mail dated
15/10/2014 & 14/1/2015. There are two issue (of
tax evasion pending above ITA/writs) related to
false evidence created by tax payers and in the
knowledge of Standing Counsel of Income Tax, all
the connected Income Tax officials and all
concerned Assessee.
Issue One: these parties Escorts Limited, Big
Apple Clothing, Dr. Naresh Trehan & AAA
Portfolio became owner of EHIRC hospital
(Delhi Society by fraud)."
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 4 of 35
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
11. Tax payers as well Tax departments Action of
deliberately misleading Hon'ble Delhi High
Court is contempt of Court. Papers given by
above parties are under oath. And all concerned
party (Concerned CIT (at present CIT 3 Delhi,
CIT 21 Delhi & CIT Faridabad), Income Tax
Counsel and Tax payers) know about forgery,
even then hiding it, is clearly contempt of court for
malafide reasons."
4. At the outset, when the above fact was pointed out,
learned counsel for the Revenue and the assessee pointed
to the affidavit and stated that this does not amount to
compliance with the previous order. Sh. Gupta was asked
whether he wishes to unconditionally withdraw the
affidavit and the allegations, to which he agreed
conditionally. The condition proposed by him was that
even whilst he was willing to withdraw the affidavit and the
allegations with respect to the Standing Counsel and the
conduct of the case before this Court, he would feel free to
press those allegations elsewhere. He also stated that he
had no desire and did not wish to withdraw any other
allegations against the officers or the officials of the
Income Tax Department, the CIT (Appeals) and the
department generally, and that the allegations of fraud etc.
against the assessees should remain as a matter of record.
5. This Court is of the opinion that given the nature of the
conduct displayed by Sh. Gupta, i.e. preferring an
application for intervention which was rejected, being
Intervener Application No. 5779/2008; thereafter engaging
in e-mail communications with the Standing Counsel and
levelling allegations against them; addressing e-mails
directly to this Court and finally, placing on record an
affidavit detailing the allegations even while stating that he
would withdraw some of them vis-a-vis the Standing
Counsel, but would nevertheless press those allegations
against the same individuals elsewhere, prima facie
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 5 of 35
amounts to criminal contempt punishable in accordance
with law. This Court has been informed that two of the
Standing Counsels - Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Rohit
Madan, who had previously appeared, have already
recused themselves from the matter. The behaviour
outlined above amounts to seeking to prejudice and
interfere or tending to interfere with the due course of
proceedings in the present appeals, i.e. ITA 1428/2006,
ITA 2011/2010 and ITA 1262/2011 and in W.P.(C)
836/2007.
6. This Court is of the opinion that consequently
appropriate action and further proceedings under Section
15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is warranted. In the
circumstances, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta is issued with
Show Cause Notice, returnable on 09.04.2015 to give his
explanation why he should not be proceeded with under
Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in respect
of the above allegations. The notice shall also annex a
copy of this order and the copy of the Intervener Affidavit
filed by him. The Registry is directed to register a separate
criminal contempt proceeding and file the originals of the
Intervener Affidavit which is part of the record in ITA
No.1428/2006 in the said criminal contempt proceedings.
Besides, the Registry shall place on record a copy of the e-
mail and fax communication numbering 100 pages which
was addressed by Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta directly to this
Court. These shall be annexed along with the Show Cause
Notice to be served upon Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta on the
next returnable date, i.e. 09.04.2015. Sh. Rakesh Kumar
Gupta is present in Court and has been apprised of this
order.
C.M. Nos.2553/2015 & 2554/2015 in ITA 1428/2006
Issue notice. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel accepts notice.
List on 12.03.2015...."
2. Subsequently, on 12.03.2015, following orders were passed:
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 6 of 35
".... 1. Mr. Simran Mehta, counsel for the assessee has handed
over a copy of the application, which he submits was sent to him
and to Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, counsel for the revenue by Mr.
Rakesh Kumar Gupta. The said application seeks complaint to be
lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. This pertains to the
conduct of the present case itself. The document particularly
contains averments to the effect that the counsel Mr. Simran
Mehta and "their associates" and Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, who
appears for the revenue are deliberately not exposing any
statements and are in collusion with each other.
2. The statement of Mr. Gupta, who is present in person in Court,
has been separately recorded. He alleges that the revenue's
counsel are in collusion with the assessee. This Court notices that
on 15.1.2015 also similar allegations against the conduct of
proceedings, were made pointedly against the counsel for the
revenue. Mr. Gupta had stated that he would withdraw the
allegations and that he may be permitted to argue the case in the
Court instead. In the light of the undertaking by Mr. Gupta that he
would withdraw the allegations clarifying that he may be
permitted to make brief submissions duly supplemented by written
notes , the said conduct was ignored. On 12.2.2015, the Court
noticed inter alia that even whilst placing on record the affidavit
seemingly withdrawing his allegations Mr. Gupta had persisted in
levelling serious and scandalous allegations against the counsel
for the revenue. These averments - made on affidavit were
considered serious enough to warrant initiation of contempt
proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act.
3. Having regard to the conduct of Mr. Gupta, reflected in the
previous orders of the Court it is apparent that he appears to have
a single minded mission of pursuing various counsel - besides the
parties, on the allegation of collusion of revenue. Whilst zeal of a
litigant or a party's anxiety to highlight the truth can be
appreciated, the persistent conduct of the third party, so much so
that it results in various counsel engaged by the revenue feeling
inability to conduct their proceedings virtually brings the
proceedings to halt. That consequence cannot be permitted. The
papers (27 sheets) handed over by Mr. Mehta and copies whereof
appear to have been addressed to counsel for the revenue are
directed to be placed on record and made over to the appropriate
Bench which is seized of the contempt proceedings. The previous
order dated 15.1.2015 of the Court enabling Mr. Gupta to address
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 7 of 35
arguments or make brief submissions is hereby recalled. Mr.
Gupta is issued an injunction not to appear or participate in the
present appeal or in any proceeding connected therewith.
4. List on 09.04.2015, the date already fixed...."
3. The respondent was given multiple opportunities to file his reply.
Since the Court itself had appointed an amicus curiae in the contempt
proceedings on 05.04.2016, the respondent's application being Crl. M.A.
954/2016 for appointment of an amicus curiae was dismissed as not pressed.
On 11.01.2017 the Court had recorded inter alia as under:
"... 3. At the outset, it may be noted that given the nature of
these applications, we had endeavoured to dispose of these
applications by oral orders but we were not permitted to do
so by the interventions and opposition by the respondent
contemnor, who did not permit us to pass orders on these
applications making allegations against the court that he was
not being heard. He has made protracted submissions. In
view of his intemperate and obstructive conduct, we have also
been compelled to reserve the orders on these applications.
4. We may also note that Crl. M.A. No. 17318/2016 (page
519) in paras 3 and 4, the respondent contemnor has made
the following averments:-
3. C/R-1 is facing this case in person and has basic
law knowledge only. Due to lack of fund, does not
able to engage proper Lawyers to take his case.
4. Absence of, lawyers help has resulted order by
Tax bench, which has ignored various facts.".
5. So as to ensure fair representation and access to justice to
the applicant, we put forth a suggestion that we would give
him a lawyer of ability from the panel which has been
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 8 of 35
constituted by the Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee. The appellant is categorical that he shall choose
a lawyer, who would be permitted to make only legal
submissions and he himself would make The factual
submissions. This amply manifests that the submissions of the
respondent contemnor / applicant that he is unable to engage
a legal counsel for want of funds is misconceived. In any
case, in order to ensure complete justice, it is directed that
respondent contemnor/ applicant to place complete income
and assets and liability on record within one week from
today.
Order reserved.
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015
6. By the order dated 12th, February, 2015 passed in ITA No.
1428/2016, notice to show cause was issued to the respondent
herein to give an, explanation as to why he should not be
proceeded with under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971. These proceedings were so registered and are
being pending for some time. In the meantime, the respondent
herein, who is present in person, has placed voluminous
affidavits, applications and documents on record.
7. It is pointed out by Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior
counsel and Amicus Curiae and Mr. Varun Goswamij APP
for the State appointed as Amicus Curiae that in all pleadings
and affidavits on record, the respondent is not only
reiterating the pleas which were the basis of order dated 23rd
August, 2016 but is making further allegations...."
4. The respondent filed various applications seeking a myriad of reliefs,
ranging from affidavits to be filed by counsel representing the Income Tax
Department to supply of documents by counsel and by registry of this court;
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 9 of 35
for early disposal of his applications; to record the Court proceedings in
court by phone, camera/electronic devise; for taking action against the tax
payer for allegedly making incorrect averments before the Court; and to pass
an interim award of Rs. 10 cores in his favour. By order dated 25.01.2017,
each of the applications were dismissed and costs of Rs. 2500/- were
imposed in seven of the applications. Ordinarily, we would not have
reproduced the order disposing of these applications, but the nature and the
relief sought and the persistent conduct of the respondent, as recorded
therein, makes it necessary for us to reproduce the order as under:
1. By way of the present order, we propose to decide 11
applications being Crl.M.A. Nos. 12118/2015, 12119/2015,
12120/2015, 18534/2015, 7868/2016, 7869/2016,
7870/2016, 17316/2016, 17317/2016, 17318/2016 and
17319/2016 filed by the respondent before us. Before
dealing with the individual applications, it is necessary to
note a few essential facts relating to the litigation
wherefrom the present contempt proceedings arise. It
appears that three Income Tax Appeals and one Writ
Petition being ITA No. 1428/2006 CIT v. M/s Escorts Ltd.;
ITA 2011/2010 CIT v Big Apple Clothing Pvt. Ltd.; ITA
1262/2011 CIT v. Naresh K. Trehan and W.P.(C)
No.836/2007 Escorts Ltd. V. Asstt. Commissioner of
Income are pending before this court. These matters relate
to income tax assessment orders and proceedings under the
Income Tax Act against the private parties therein. Sh.
Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the respondent herein, has no
connection with the parties and is also not a party to these
proceedings.
2. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta filed an intervention
application being CM No.5779/2008 in ITA 1428/2006 CIT
v. M/s. Escorts Ltd. in which he had levelled several
allegations against the counsel for the revenue. This
application was rejected by the court by the order dated 15th
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 10 of 35
January, 2005. Similar allegations were made in subsequent
affidavits as well as e-mail communications sent to the court
as well as to standing counsels as well as affidavits against
the counsels for the revenue; which were considered by the
court, in the proceedings on 12th February, 2015 in the said
matters. Being of the view that the behaviour of the
respondent herein amounted to seeking to prejudice,
interfere or trying to interfere with due course of
proceedings in the above cases, proceedings under Section
15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 were due and
warranted, notice to show cause was issued on the 12th
February, 2015 to the respondent as to why he should not be
proceeded against under Section 15 of the Contempt of
Court Act, 1971 with regard to the allegations made by him
and the present contempt proceedings came to be registered.
The eleven applications which are the subject matter of the
present order have been filed in the present contempt
proceedings.
3. These applications were listed before us on 16th
November, 2016 when we had proposed to hear and dispose
of these applications by oral orders. However, the
respondent resorted to repeated interventions and
obstructed us from passing orders on the applications to the
extent of making allegations that he was not being heard. In
this background, we decided to reserve orders. It is
noteworthy that the respondent advanced protracted
arguments on these applications.
4. We take up these applications in the chronological order
in which they have been filed :
(i)Crl.M.A.No.12118/2015 (page 368)
This application has been filed by the applicant
submitting that the written submissions stand filed in ITA
No. 1428/2016 by learned counsel for the Income Tax
Department. With regard to these submissions, the
applicant has filed the present application seeking the
following prayer :
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 11 of 35
"b. Direct Ms Suruchi Aggarwal to (R-3) file
affidavit about facts as requested in preceding
paragraph - Para 13."
5. Such a prayer in the present application could be made
only in ITA 1428/2016 and has no bearing on the
consideration by us. The prayer in the present application
is completely misdirected.
The application is dismissed with costs which are
assessed at `2,500/- which shall be deposited with the Delhi
High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of
four weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be
filed in the present proceedings.
(ii) Crl.M.A.No.12119/2015 (at page 375)
6. This application is premised on the averments made in
para 3, 4 and 9 which are to the following effect :
"3. On 12/2/2015, Hon'ble Court bench
admitted Mr. Simran Mehta CM APPL.-
2553/2015 and issued notice. Mr. Simran Mehta
had given copy of CM to C/R-1/IV/WB during
court proceeding. On next date of hearing
12/3/2015, Mr. Simran Mehta denied giving copy
of CM to C/R-1/IV/WB.
4. Accusers (Mr. Simran Mehta, Advocate) are
not giving, even basic material to C/R-1/IV/WB.
e.g. Mr. Simran Mehta, Advocate (is not
identifying the pages (out of 6 loose pages -*Page
12 to 17 of Application dated 10/3/2015) given by
him to Hon'ble Court. (request was made by e
mail dated 23-2-2015 & 11-4-2015). Similarly Mr.
Simran Mehta is not sticking to one particular
stand (taken two different stand -first stand-case
of giving CM copy on CM admission date, then
(second stand) totally opposite stand of not giving
CM copy on the date CM decision )( request was
made by e mail dated 11-4-2015) . Similarly not
giving certified copy of CM and decision in which
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 12 of 35
Mr. Simran Mehta got injunction orders (against
C/R-1/IV/WB), because C/R-1/IV/WB want to
challenge injunction order. If, C/R-1/IV/WB does
not comply injunction order, then, Mr. Simran
Mehta, may again request Hon'ble Court to start
another contempt proceeding C/R-1/IV/WB for
non-compliance of Court order.
9. In the light of above, C/R-1/IV/WB prayed this
hon'ble Court to kindly direct Mr. Simran Mehta
to file affidavit clearly stating about critical six
loose pages submitted by Advocates and also
clarify stand on giving copy of CM APPL-
2553/2015 to C/R-1/IV/WB.
Identify pages given by him to Hon'ble
a
Court (by stating Page Number in affidavit)
Who had prepared/given these paper to
b
him.
Identify pages given to him (by opposite
c side Advocate R-3) (by stating Page
Number in affidavit).
Justified that pages given by him contain
d essential facts as stated by C/R-1/IV/WB
shortlisted in perjury application.
State, whether Mr. Simran Mehta given
e copy of CM APPL.-2553/2015 to C/R-
1/IV/WB or not.
7. On these averments, the respondent has prayed as
follows:
"10. xxx xxx xxx
b. Direct Mr. Simran Mehta to file clarifying
affidavit about facts as requested in preceding
paragraph - (Para 9)."
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 13 of 35
8. Again, just as the prayer in Crl.M.A.No. 12118/2015, this
prayer could be made only in the proceedings wherein CM
No. 2553/2015 has been made. The same has no bearing on
the present case.
This application is, therefore, dismissed with costs of
Rs.2,500/- which shall be deposited with the Delhi High
Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four
weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be filed in
the present proceedings.
(iii) Crl.M.A.No.12120/2015 (at page 380)
9. By this application, the applicant prays for a direction to
the Income Tax Appellate and Writ Branch of this court to
supply documents relating to the aforenoticed income tax
appeals and the writ petition to this court.
The respondent is not a party to those matters and is
not entitled to this record.
It is, therefore, not open to the respondent to seek
such direction. In case, any records are required for by this
court, appropriate directions requisitioning the same would
be made by the court.
This application is dismissed with costs of `2,500/-
which shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee within a period of four weeks from
today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be filed in the present
proceedings.
(iv) Crl.M.A.No.18534/2015 (page 412)
10. By this application, the applicant seeks early
disposal of Crl.M.A.Nos.12118/2015, 12119/2015,
12120/2015. In as much as these applications have been
heard and are being disposed of by this order,
Crl.M.A.No.18534/2015 is hereby disposed of as having
been rendered infructuous.
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 14 of 35
(v) Crl.M.A.No.7868/2016 (page 451)
11. By this application, the applicant has prayed for
permission to record the hearings in court by phone,
camera/electronic device. Such a prayer is completely
unwarranted. This application is misconceived and is
dismissed as such.
(vi) Crl.M.A.No.7869/2016 (page 454)
12. In this application, the applicant has made the
following averments :
"2. Tax payers are hiding important facts
and giving false statement to win tax cases/
proceeding through unfair means. And harass
(C/R-1) in the contempt proceeding.
3. Income Tax department is still presenting weak
case in Tax cases (ITA 1428/2006 and connected
matters) and not brought to this Hon'ble court
notice about their strong points and false
averments of tax payers.
4. C/R-1 written various letters to Income Tax
department (pinpointing shortcoming in tax
department pleading). Missing strong points are
summarized in perjury application (page 131-156
of this Contempt proceeding records).
5. In the light of above, C/R-1 C/R-1 prayed this
hon'ble court to take strong actions against Tax
payer (for hiding important facts and making
incorrect averment to win tax cases through
unfair means And harass (C/R-1) in the contempt
proceeding) and Tax department (not brought to
this Hon'ble court notice about their strong points
and false averments of tax payers to lose tax cases
through unfair means at Nation Cost and C/R-1
Cost and harass (C/R-1) in the contempt
proceeding)."
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 15 of 35
13. Premised on these averments, the
applicant/respondent seeks the following prayer :
" 6. xxx xxx xxx
b. C/R-1 prayed this Hon'ble court to take
strong actions against Tax payer (for hiding
important facts and making incorrect averment to
win tax cases through unfair means And
harass (C/R-1) in the contempt proceeding) and
Tax department (not brought to this Hon'ble court
notice about their strong points and false
averments of tax payers to lose tax cases through
unfair means at Nation Cost and C/R-1 Cost And
harass (C/R-) in the contempt proceeding.)"
14. On the face of the record, this application in the
present proceedings is again completely misconceived. We
are concerned in the present proceedings only with an
examination of the issue as to whether the
respondent/applicant has committed contempt of court.
15. So far as the conduct and action of the assessees
and the revenue is concerned, the same is the subject matter
of consideration in the aforesaid three appeals and the
pending writ petition. In any case, as observed by the
Division Bench in the order dated 9th April, 2015, the
applicant has no locus standi to make such a prayer.
This application is dismissed with costs which are
quantified at `2,500/- which shall be deposited with the
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period
of four weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be
filed in the present proceedings.
(vii) Crl.M.A.No.7870/2016 (page 457)
16. We extract the averments made by the respondent
on which the prayer in this application is premised:
"2. Tax payers are hiding important facts
and giving false statement to win tax cases/
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 16 of 35
proceeding through unfair means. And harass
(C/R-1) in the contempt proceeding.
3. Income Tax department is still
presenting weak case in Tax cases (ITA
1428/2006 and connected matters) and not
brought to this Hon'ble court notice about their
strong points and false averments of tax payers.
4. Above action of Tax payer and Tax
department has resulted ,huge delay in payment
of reward money to C/R-1 of more than decade.
C/R-1 devote maximum time to help Tax
department to collect evaded income tax.
Delayed reward payment is giving huge
financial stress to C/R-1. Tax payer and Tax
department is using this hon'ble Court
proceeding to kill the C/R-1 economically first,
which ultimately will result physical death.
5. In the light of above, C/R-1 prayed this
hon'ble court to direct Tax department to pay
interim reward to Rs 10 Crore. C/R-1 final
reward may exceed Rs 1000 Crore as stated in
Page 395 Para 15(i) of interim reply dated
19/9/2015."
17. On these averments, the applicant seeks the
following prayers :
"6. xxx xxx xxx
b. C/R-1 prayed this hon'ble court to
direct Tax department to pay interim reward of
Rs 10 Crore"
18. No direction can be issued in the present case for
payment of any reward to the respondent in these
proceedings. This application is again hopelessly
misconceived and is dismissed with costs of `2,500/- which
shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee within a period of four weeks from today. Proof
of deposit of costs shall be filed in the present proceedings.
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 17 of 35
(viii) Crl.M.A.No.17316/2016 (page 512)
19. In this application, the contemnor/respondent
makes the following averments :
"2. C/R-1 had supplied substantial
evidence in soft form (DVD) and available at
Page 388 in Court file
3. C/R-1 is ready to prove all allegation
levelled against tax payer, tax department etc
are true. Hon'ble Court need Information
contain in DVD to effectively hear case and
C/R 1 to prove the main allegation against Tax
payers (that they are lying to Court to win case
at the Cost of Nation Tax due) and Tax payment
is not putting points in their favour for
unexplained reasons, therefore, it is vital to
decide case property that information should be
in the form that Hon'ble bench see them.
4. Tax payer as well Tax department had
already this information in paper form as well
in soft form, DVD information is to be
converted in paper form for Hon'ble bench
only.
xxx
6. In the light of above, to protect the
revenue interest and to protect justice, C/R-1
request for converting information contain in
DVD in paper form or alternatively convert
present court/Bench to E Court or alternatively
transfer the case to E Court."
20. On these allegations, the applicant/respondent
makes the following prayer :
"b. C/R-1 request for converting
information contain in DVD in paper form or
alternatively convert present court/Bench to E
court or alternatively transfer case to E Court."
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 18 of 35
21. This court is fully equipped and receives digitalised
records. No direction, as sought by the applicant, are
necessary and the application is dismissed.
(ix) Crl.M.A.No. 17317/2016 (page 515)
22. By this application, the applicant has made a
grievance that the counsels for the Income Tax Department
have attended very few hearings in the present proceedings
and seeks directions to the Tax Department to depute a
representative to this court for completion of formalities. It
is trite that contempt proceedings are between the court and
the contemnor. In case, presence of any particular person
or authority is deemed necessary, it is for the court to so
direct.
The prayer made in this application is misconceived
and is rejected with costs of `2,500/- which shall be
deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee within a period of four weeks from today. Proof
of deposit of costs shall be filed in the present proceedings.
(x) Crl.M.A.No.17318/2016 (page 519)
23. In this application, the respondent has made the
following assertions in paras 3 and 4:
"3. C/R-1 is facing this case in person and
has basic law knowledge only. Due to lack of
fund, does not able to engage proper lawyers to
take his case.
4. Absence of lawyers help has resulted
order by Tax bench, which has ignored various
facts."
24. In para 5, the applicant refers to proceedings
before the Tax Bench in the aforestated appeals and
contempt. The respondent makes the following prayers in
this application:
"b. When application is pending to review
order dated 12/3/2016, Hon'ble Court, then
Hon'blereferred 12/3/2016 as final order.
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 19 of 35
12/3/2016 order was partly revised by the
presiding Judge bench of Tax case on
27/5/2016."
25. We have heard all applications filed by the
respondent which are being disposed of by this order. As
such, this application is rendered infructuous and is
disposed of as such.
26. We may note that on the last date of hearing, in
view of the submissions made by the applicant in paras 3
and 4 noted above, we had queried the applicant if we could
give him a lawyer of ability from the panel constituted by the
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The
respondent was emphatic that he shall choose a lawyer but
the lawyer would be permitted to make only legal
submissions and that he would make factual submissions
himself. This in fact manifests that the submission by the
respondent that he is unable to plead legal submissions is
not correct. We had noted this fact in our order dated 11th
January, 2017.
We have also noted the intemperate conduct of the
respondent no.1 in our order dated 11th January, 2017.
(xi) Crl.M.A.No. 17319/2016 (page 533)
27. In this application, the respondent makes the
following averments :
"2. Tax department is deliberately losing
revenue for unexplained reasons, can be proved
with the latest ITAT order (AAA Portfolio P Ltd.
Case-copy of order is at page 26-31) dated 7-4-
2016 on the same issue on the pending cases on
which present contempt proceeding was initiated
against C/R-1.
3. There is total blackout (tax department
favourable points in ITAT order) on direction
(issued dated 14-2-2016 by Director of Income
Tax Vig (NZ) to CIT 1 Delhi (supervisor officer
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 20 of 35
of officer looking AAA Portfolio P Ltd Case).
Main issue is summarised in four pages from 197
to 200 of Criminal Contempt 4/2015 case file).
And in detail is explained by C/R-1 Page 135 to
140 and 175 to 190.
4. Kindly note, there is gap of one year,
between direction issued and ITAT order. And
this point should be part of ITAT records."
On these averments, he makes the following prayer :
"b. C/R-1 request this Hon'ble Court to call
the complete records from ITAT and appeals
filed in Delhi High Court of AAA Portfolio P Ltd
Case."
28. Such a prayer may be relevant for the purposes of
deciding the issues in the Income Tax Appeals and writ
petition. Such prayer in the present proceedings is
completely misdirected.
The application is dismissed with costs which are assessed
at Rs. 2,500/- which shall be deposited with the Delhi High
Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four
weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be filed in
the present proceedings....."
5. There is no record of the respondent having deposited the said costs
imposed upon him. In other words, he is in default of the said directions.
Subsequently, on 17.05.2017, the Court noted that although on 25.01.2017
the respondent had declined the appointment of a lawyer from the Delhi
High Court Legal Services Committee to assist him in the present
proceedings, nevertheless on his oral request in the Court, Mr. Manoj Ohri,
Sr. Advocate was appointed as an amicus curiae to aid and assist him in
addressing the Court on the legal as well as the factual issues.
6. On 04.08.2017, the following order was passed:
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 21 of 35
"....Mr. Manoj Ohri, learned Senior Counsel (Amicus
Curiae) appointed by this Court to aid and assist Mr.
Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the respondent, in addressing this
Court on his legal and factual issues, has sought a
discharge in view of the circumstance that the respondent, is
not willing to file an affidavit, containing his unconditional
apology, as recorded in the previous order dated 28th July,
2017.
It would be profitable to reproduce the said order dated
28 July, 2017 to appreciate its ambit and importance:-
"Mr. Manoj Ohri, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta,
the respondent, states that after the latter had
addressed the Court in the morning, he had
discussed the matter with him in the lunch recess.
Now, the respondent wishes to make a submission
to the Court.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta states that he never
intended to affront the dignity of this Court or be
an impediment in the administration of justice.
Hence, he is ready and willing to withdraw all the
statements made by him regarding the lawyers of
the Revenue Department. He further states that he
is ready to file an affidavit in this regard
expressing his unconditional apology within a week
from today.
In view of the circumstance that the Contemnor
wishes to purge the contempt, if any, by filing an
affidavit unconditionally withdrawing the
allegations levelled against the lawyers
representing Revenue department; and to further
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 22 of 35
state that his . actions were neither wilful nor
deliberate nor intended to lower the dignity of the
Court or scandalise it in any manner, he be
granted an opportunity, so to do.
Renotify on 4th August, 2017".
After Mr. Manoj Ohri, learned Senior Counsel, had
sought a discharge, as aforesaid, and the Court had so
discharged him, we had asked Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta to
address us in relation to the Show Cause Notice issued to
him by this Court, by way of order dated 12th February,
2015 and, in particular, the foundation of the said Show
Cause Notice, namely, the allegations levelled by him
against the counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue
Department.
In this behalf, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta states that
although he is willing to withdraw some allegations on his
own, and has already done so, he is not willing to withdraw
all the allegations levelled against the lawyers representing
the Revenue Department.
We, therefore, asked Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta to address
us in relation to the Show Cause Notice issued under Section
15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta having addressed us for an
hour and a half on the 28"' July, 2017 before the order
referred to hereinabove came to be recorded and having
further addressed us for twenty minutes today, expresses his
inability to conclude his submissions on account of his
illness, characterised as pain in his left eye. Mr. Rakesh
Kumar Gupta further articulates in Court that he feels his
blood pressure has shot up and he feels the need to use the
wash room frequently and is, further, unable to continue his
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 23 of 35
arguments today. He, therefore, requests that the matter be
adjourned for a month and a half in order to enable him to
recoup his health and address this Court.
We are constrained to observe that the conduct of Mr.
Rakesh Kumar Gupta in the present proceedings, as well as,
in the Court has been unreasonable and dilatory. Even as
we were dictating this order he has interrupted us a few
times.
However, in the interest of justice, as a final opportunity,
at the request of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, we are
adjourning the matter to 18th August, 2017.
It is also observed that the respondent has filed multiple
replies to show cause notice.
It is, however, made clear to Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta
that no further opportunity shall be granted in this behalf.
Renotify on 18th August, 2017...."
7. Today, the respondent has been heard in person. He has endeavoured
to defend the allegations made by him against the counsel for the Revenue
Department. He seeks to defend his refusal to withdraw the charges against
the said counsel on the ground that he feels the allegations are justified, and
that according to him the complete facts of the case were not
comprehensively and ably put before the Court, which was detrimental to
Revenue's interest. The respondent has filed not one but five replies to the
show cause notice; each of which he terms as an 'interim reply' - a
procedure unknown to law. Indeed in his affidavit of January, 2017 he goes
on to reiterate his allegations made against counsel who had or were
assisting the Court. In para 32 of the said affidavit the respondent states that
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 24 of 35
three judgments were passed in favour of the tax payers; in the process the
Court lost the chance to remove corruption from its corridor. He also
expressed the hope that he had expected the Delhi High Court to recommend
him for a Bharat Ratna for the huge public service (at the risk of his life) and
for removing corruption in justice administration (sic). The respondent has
also accused counsel for the department stating that they are neither
endeavouring seriously to prove the allegations, nor were they appearing
before this Court on most of the hearings in the contempt proceedings; that
the standing counsel of the Revenue had not followed the latter's written
instructions; in the process the counsel are said to have concealed adverse
facts from the Court and even lied to this Court. However, these allegations
have not been proven by him. The Revenue has had no such complaints
against its counsel. Therefore, the allegations are ex-facie, unwarranted and
even otherwise not proven by the respondent.
8. Earlier the respondent's application for invervenor was dismissed by
this Court on 23.09.2008 by the following orders:
"This is an application by a person who claims to be
an informer. He is seeking intervention in the present
appeal. We have heard him at length and we have also
heard the learned counsel for the assessee as well as
the learned counsel for the revenue.
Without going into the allegations and counter
allegations which have been leveled, we are of the view
that since this Court has already submitted this appeal
and substantial questions of law have been framed, the
informer has no role to play. He is neither a necessary
nor a proper party. Consequently, his application for
intervention is rejected. If he has any grievance, he
has other avenues open to him under law. But,
intervening in an appeal under Section 260A of the
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 25 of 35
Income Tax Act, 1961, is certainly not one of those
avenues. The application is dismissed."
9. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate (Amicus Curiae) has submitted that
the respondent has leveled baseless and wanton allegations against counsel,
who were representing their respective departments and were assisting the
Court, this amounts to intervention in the administration of justice and
constitutes criminal contempt of court. He relies upon the following
judgments:
(i) H. Syama Sundara Rao vs UOI & Ors. 2007 Crl.
LJ 2626 in which it was held as under:
"Casting aspersions and extending threats
by issuing notices to the Advocate for the opposite
side containing disparaging and derogatory
remarks has the effect of deterring an Advocate
from conducting his duties towards his client and
embarrassing him in the discharge of his duties
and thus amounts to contempt of court on the very
same principles which are applicable with regard
to the criticism of a judge or a judgment as in
each such instance, the tendency is to poison the
fountain of justice, sully the stream of judicial
administration, by creating distrust, and
pressurizing the advocate as officers of the court
from discharging their professional duties as
enjoined upon them towards their clients for
protecting their rights and liberties"
(ii) Charanlal Sahu vs UOI & Anr. (1988) 3 SCC 255 in
which it was held as under:
"The petition has been couched in unsavory
language and the petitioner seems to have made
an intentional attempt to indulge in mud-slinging
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 26 of 35
against the advocates, Supreme Court in
particular as also other constitutional institutions.
Many of the allegations in his writ petition are
likely to lower the prestige of this Court as the
apex judicial institution. The petitioner has left
out no institution from his attempt of mud-
slinging. We have a feeling that while drawing up
the petition the petitioner has considered himself
to be the only blemishless person and everyone
else including social institutions to be blame-
worthy. We direct the Registry to draw up an
appropriate proceeding for contempt and issue
notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show
cause in person."
(iii) Nand Lal Bhalla vs Malik Kishori Lal 1947 Crl. LJ
757 in which it was held as under:
"Where on the allegations of gist of the
contempt is not that the Court was insulted or
interrupted but that an Advocate was threatened
in the performance of his duties, there is no
contempt of the Court directly, but there is
contempt in as much as an officer of the Court
such as an Advocate appearing in his professional
capacity was threatened and insulted while in the
performance of his professional duties in that
Court."
(iv) Bhola Nath Chaudhary, Contemnor AIR 1961 Pat
1 in which it was held as under:
"If aspersions were cast upon an advocate of
a party it might be that some of them had an effect
intending to deter the advocate from continuing
his duties for his client and in certain
circumstances in embarrassing him in the
discharge of those duties. It was observed that
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 27 of 35
comment upon an advocate which had reference
to the conduct of his cases might amount to
contempt of court on exactly the same principle
which was applicable with regard to the criticism
of a Judge or the judgment."
(v) Damayanti G. Chandiramani vs S. Vaney AIR
1966 Bom 19 in which it was held as under:
"Contempt of Court may be said to be
constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the
authority and administration of Law into
disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or
prejudice parties' litigant or their witnesses
during the litigation. It is settled law that
disrespect or disregard to an advocate in certain
circumstances so as to deter him from discharging
his duties would amount to contempt of court."
10. In H. Syama Sundara Rao (supra) this Court had held as under:
"......17. In Charan Lal Sahu (supra) while hearing a
petition stated to be a Public Interest Litigation filed by the
petitioner couched in unsavoury language, the Supreme
Court observed that the petitioner therein had made
intentional attempt to indulge in mudslinging against the
advocates, the Court itself and also other constitutional
institutions which clearly gave the impression that the
petitioner intended to denigrate the Supreme Court in the
esteem of the people of India and thus the Court directed
drawing up of appropriate proceedings for contempt against
the petitioner.
18. Thus, it is crystal clear that casting aspersions and
extending threats by issuing notices to the Advocate for the
opposite side containing disparaging and derogatory
remarks has the effect of deterring an Advocate from
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 28 of 35
conducting his duties towards his client and embarrassing
him in the discharge of his duties and thus amounts to
contempt of court on the very same principles which are
applicable with regard to the criticism of a judge or a
judgment as in each such instance, the tendency is to poison
the fountain of justice, sully the stream of judicial
administration, by creating distrust, and pressurizing the
advocates as officers of the court from discharging their
professional duties as enjoined upon them towards their
clients for protecting their rights and liberties.
19. The Courts are under an obligation not only to protect
the dignity of the Court and uphold its majesty, but also to
extend the umbrella of protection to all the limbs of
administration of justice and advocates, while discharging
their professional duties, also play a pivotal role in the
administration and dispensation of justice. It is thus the
duty of the courts to protect the advocate from being cowed
down into submission and under pressure of threat of
menace from any quarter and thus abandon their clients by
withdrawing pleas taken on their behalf or by withdrawing
from the brief itself, which may prove fatal not only to the
legal proceeding in question but also permit an impression
to gain ground that adoption of such tactics are permissible
or even acceptable. Failure to deal with such conduct and
nip it in the bud shall result in the justice system itself taking
a severe knocking, which tendency must be put down as it
amounts to direct interference with the administration of
justice and is, therefore, a contempt of a serious nature.
20. Coming to the cases referred to and relied upon by the
petitioner, in our opinion, the same are not relevant to the
facts of the present case. The judgments in the said cases are
with respect to act or omission by an advocate which
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 29 of 35
interrupts the flow of justice or renders a professional
unworthy of exercising the privileges of his profession, as
also the duty of the members of the bar towards the bench so
as to maintain dignity of the court etc. By relying on the said
judgments, the petitioner is trying to state that as the reply
filed by the respondents contains falsehoods allegedly made
at the instance of and legal advise rendered by the counsel,
therefore, it is not the petitioner, but the counsel who is
guilty of contempt of this Court. We are unable to
appreciate the arguments made by the petitioner. Even
assuming that false averments were made in the reply by the
respondents, the petitioner has the liberty to point out the
same to the Court in the course of arguments or by filing
appropriate proceedings and the Court would have taken
appropriate action, if deemed necessary and proper.
However, the Court cannot permit the petitioner to don the
mantle of a Judge, level accusations against the counsel for
the other side, hold him guilty and threaten him with various
consequences during the pendency of the case, as done by
the petitioner in the present case.
21. In fact, one of the judgments relied upon by the
petitioner, namely, Pratap Singh (supra) only reiterates
what has been stated hereinabove with regard to obstructing
the court and perverting the course of justice amounting to
contempt. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court while
holding that initiation of departmental proceedings in terms
of circular issued by the Government to the effect that it is
improper for Government servant to take recourse to court
of law before exhausting normal official channels of redress,
amounts to contempt of Court, observed below:
"Para 10: ...There are many ways of obstructing
the Court and "any conduct by which the course
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 30 of 35
justice is perverted, either by a party or a
stranger, is a contempt; thus the use of threats, by
letter or otherwise, to a party while his suit is
pending; or abusing a party in letters to persons
likely to be witnesses in the cause, have been held
to be contempts."
(Oswald's Contempt of Court, 3rd Edn. p.87). the
Question is not whether the action in fact
interfered, but whether it had a tendency to
interfere with the due course of justice. The action
taken in this case against the respondent by way
of a proceeding against him can, in our opinion,
have only one tendency, namely, the tendency to
coerce the respondent and force him to withdraw
his suit or otherwise not press it. If that be the
clear and unmistakable tendency of the
proceedings taken against the respondent, then
there can be no doubt that in law the appellants
have been guilty of contempt of Court, even
though they were merely carrying out the
instructions contained in the circular letter."
22. In the light of the aforementioned judgments and upon
perusing the allegations levelled by the petitioner against
the advocate for the respondent Nos.3 & 4, there is no
manner of doubt in our mind that the acts of the petitioner in
issuing threatening notices to the advocate in the present
pending litigation amounts to contempt of court as it is an
attempt to pressurize the counsel to withdraw from the legal
proceedings or seek discharge from his professional duties
in view of the pressure. The said act is nothing but an
attempt to thwart and hamper the free flow of the
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 31 of 35
administration of justice, thus amounts to direct interference
with the course of justice.
23. We may now deal with the question of apology. In the
course of arguments, the petitioner did apologize to the
advocate for the respondents. However, immediately
thereafter, the petitioner pressed his arguments in reply to
the notice to show cause and stated that he had in fact not
committed any contempt. Even in the written submissions
handed over by the petitioner in the course of arguments on
2nd November, 2006, the petitioner starts by saying "he has
not committed any contempt and in fact it is the advocate
for the respondents who has committed professional
misconduct, criminal contempt and fraud on judiciary."
Thereafter, the petitioner has reiterated all the averments
that he made against the advocate in the notices served
upon the advocate as also in the earlier reply to the notice
to show cause issued by us. The petitioner was informed by
the court that if he thought it proper he may tender an
unconditional apology and that he could not add any riders
or stipulations to his apology. The petitioner thereafter
continued to address us on the contempt and sought to
justify his acts. Therefore, the question of dropping the
proceedings was ruled out...."
11. From the preceding narration of facts, it is evident that the respondent
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta has cast aspersions against the integrity of the
advocates for the Revenue who, as officers of the Court, have been assisting
this Court in the administration of justice. The respondent's intervenor
application having been dismissed, his status is that of a busy body
interloper in the matter pending before the Court. He had on multiple
occasions agreed to withdraw the allegations but each time he resiled from
honouring it. The learned amicus curiae appointed for him too has
dignifiedly withdrawn from the case in view of the respondent resiling from
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 32 of 35
filing an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology. As noted in the
order dated 15.02.2015, even after the dismissal of his intervention
application on 15.01.2015, and his statement to the Court that he would
withdraw the allegations against the counsel for the revenue, he went on to
send a detailed fax to this Court in respect of pending matters which ran into
100 pages.
12. In the light of the aforesaid judgments and upon perusing the
allegations levelled by the respondent against the Advocates - respondent
nos. 3 & 4 the Court finds that there is no justification for the same. His
conduct betrays a wanton disregard of Court procedure and an indulgence in
wastage of previous judicial time especially in view of his repeated resiling
from withdrawing the allegations against lawyers assisting the Court and
offering an unconditional apology. Criminal contempt of court includes
publication in writing or of doing of any other act whatsoever, which
prejudices or tends to interfere or obstruct in any manner, the course of
judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. The respondent has
made allegations of impropriety and cast aspersions on the professional
integrity of counsel for the Revenue.
13. The respondent has not sought permission for justification of the
allegations by contending truth as a valid defence. It is to be noted that such
a defence can be permitted by the Court only if it is in the public interest and
request for invoking the said defence is bona fide. Even otherwise, despite
the ample opportunity given to the respondent after issuance of Show Cause
Notice on 12.02.2015, the respondent has not brought anything on the record
for the last 30 months to suggest, plead or justify the allegations as being
true. Justification by truth is a heavy burden and the respondent's numerous
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 33 of 35
replies/interim replies are nowhere close to any justification. The
allegations against the counsel for the Revenue and aspersions cast upon
their professional integrity by the respondent, would deter and inhibit
counsel from rendering assistance to the Court and to their client fully and
freely. It would also be a serious and constant embarrassment in the legal
fraternity and amongst their respective families, between relatives and social
circle. Indeed, two standing counsel concerned who had appeared for the
Revenue and had assisted the Court had recused themselves from this case.
14. From the preceding discussion, it is clear that after the respondent's
intervention application was rejected on 23.09.2008, his continued
engagement in communication with the standing counsel for levelling
allegations against them, addressing e-mail directly to this Court and placing
on record an affidavit detailing the allegations, even after stating that he will
withdraw them vis-a-vis the standing counsel but would nevertheless press
the same allegations elsewhere constitutes criminal contempt of court. Mr.
Gupta has levelled irresponsible and serious allegations against the counsel
for the Revenue, including an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate
seeking to register a case against the standing counsel for the Revenue as
recorded in the order dated 03.03.2015.
15. The respondent has chosen to represent these proceedings in person
despite having been given the assistance of a Senior Advocate as Amicus
Curiae. The respondent has resiled from his various undertakings. He fully
understands the import of these proceedings and is open to the consequences
of the same. The actions of the respondent may well have been impelled by
his conviction of self-righteousness, however, such delusion as may be,
would not mitigate the ill-effects of his deliberate actions which the Court
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 34 of 35
finds to be contumacious. He would, therefore, have to be held responsible
for the same. The Court is of the view that the conduct of the respondent,
insofar as he has leveled baseless allegations against counsel who appeared
and assisted the Court and as well as for the other reasons specified in the
Show Cause Notice, tantamount to substantial interference in the
administration of justice. In the circumstances, the respondent Mr. Rakesh
Kumar Gupta is found guilty of criminal contempt of court. He is sentenced
to simple imprisonment of one week along with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. The
fine shall be deposited within one week from today in this Court in the name
of Registrar General, failing which he will undergo further simple
imprisonment for seven days.
16. In view of the fact that the contemnor has stated that he will prefer an
appeal against the sentence, the same is suspended for 60 days, in order to
enable the contemnor to prefer a statutory appeal, in accordance with law. If
the order is not modified, the same shall come into effect after 60 days from
today and the contemnor shall be taken into custody and sent to Tihar Jail to
undergo the sentence imposed herein.
17. A copy of this order has been provided to the contemnor, Mr. Rakesh
Kumar Gupta.
18. Copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, as well as
the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, for necessary compliance.
19. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. AUGUST 31, 2017kk CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2015 Page 35 of 35