Bombay High Court
Suo Motu (Courts On Its Own Motion) vs Satish Mahadeorao Uke on 28 February, 2017
Author: Z.A.Haq
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, Z. A. Haq
1 cricp7.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
SUO-MOTO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 7 OF 2016
PETITIONER : Suo Motu (Court on its own motion),
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : Satish Mahadeorao Uke,
Aged about 37 years, Occu. Advocate,
R/o Parvati Nagar, Nagpur - 440 027.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. K. S. Joshi, Addl. Public Prosecutor
Mr. C. J. Joveson, Advocate for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, and
Z. A. HAQ, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 27 & 28, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Z.A.Haq, J.)
Shri C.J. Joveson, Advocate, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent- Satish Mahadeorao Uke, submitted that he is not authorized to argue the contempt petition and as per his instructions, he has to assist Shri Bijoy Krishna Adhikari, Advocate. We have rejected the Criminal Application No. 12 of 2017 by which respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke sought leave to permit Shri Bijoy Krishna Adhikari, Advocate to argue the matter on his behalf ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 ::: 2 cricp7.16.odt without signing and filing vakalatnama.
2] We called upon Ms. K.S.Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to assist us and with her assistance we have examined the matter.
3] While delivering judgment in Civil Revision Application No. 26/2016 on 6th of June, 2016, the learned Single Judge of this Court (Shri R.K. Deshpande, J.) found that there is a definite, deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt on the part of the present respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke, which is discernible to bring down the image of judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the administration of justice or tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The learned Single Judge recorded that there is definite act of browbeating the Court and if such attempt remains unsuccessful, to raise a false and concocted plea of recusal by the Judge hearing the matter. The learned Single Judge framed the draft charges against the present respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke, as follows :
1] You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have instituted various civil and criminal proceedings in this Court, ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 :::
3 cricp7.16.odt against the sitting Judges of this Court, the officers of this Court, including lawyers and the Registrar, as are pointed out in this order, which are frivolous and vexations and thereby you have committed an act of abuse of process of the Court, amounting to contempt of Court.
2] You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have made statements of facts before this Court recorded in the orders dated 20.4.2016 and 25.4.2016 and contained in Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 2016 and the pursis Stamp Nos.5462 of 2016 and 5811 of 2016, which you knew and believed to be false, so as to browbeat this Court on the basis of a false case of recusal and indulging in the activity of bench hunting.
3] In various litigations as are instituted and the publications, which are referred to in this order, You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have used wild, intemperate, unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible allegations scandalizing the Court and making a scurrilous attack on the Judges in person and the officers of the Court, including the Government Pleader, other lawyers and the Registrar in the Bench at Nagpur of the Bombay High Court. The allegations are made with the object, intent and motive of maligning the reputation of the Judicial Officers resulting in interference in the course of justice and the administration of law by the Courts, which amounts to contempt of Court.
4] The learned Single Judge directed that notice be issued to the present respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke to show cause as to why the proceedings for criminal contempt should not be ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 ::: 4 cricp7.16.odt instituted against him for the draft charges framed against him. The notice was made returnable on 1st of August, 2016. 5] Accordingly, these proceedings are registered. Respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke appeared before the Court when the matter was listed on 18th of July, 2016. The order passed on 18th of July, 2016 shows that initially, respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke showed his willingness for taking up of the matter on that date, however, subsequently, he sought two weeks' time to move an application seeking review of the judgment passed in Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 2016. The matter was adjourned for 1st of August, 2016 with directions to respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and to furnish an independent surety in the sum of Rs.51,000/- within two weeks. As respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke failed to comply with the above directions, the matter was listed on 26th of July, 2016, on which date, one week time was granted to respondent- Satish Mahadeorao Uke to comply with the directions. Thereafter, the matter was listed and adjourned on 02.8.2016, 05.8.2016, 09.8.2016, 16.8.2016, 22.11.2016, 07.12.2016, ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 ::: 5 cricp7.16.odt 11.01.2017 and 25.01.2017.
6] On 1st of February, 2017, respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke made a grievance that he has not received notice of suo-motu criminal contempt petition. Therefore, we passed the order directing issuance of notice to respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke to show cause why the proceedings for criminal contempt on the basis of draft charges as framed in the judgment given in Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 2016 should not be initiated against him. On 8th of February, 2017, respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke appeared and filed Criminal Application No. 05/2017 praying that certificate under Article 132(1) / 133(1)(a)/(b)/(c) of the Constitution of India be granted to enable him to prefer an appeal. He filed Criminal Application No. 04 of 2017 praying for eight weeks' time to comply with the order passed by this Court on 1 st of February, 2017 and to file proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to challenge the order passed on 1st of February, 2017. He filed Criminal Application No. 03 of 2017 praying that the proceedings of the Court be video recorded. He filed Criminal Application No. 01 of 2017 seeking leave/ permission to make ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 ::: 6 cricp7.16.odt communication with the Member of Parliament or Parliament machinery or to file petition/ request before the Parliament. The orders came to be passed on all these applications on 8 th of February, 2017.
7] Except for the reply/say filed by respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke on 6th of December, 2016 to the show cause notice, he has chosen not to file detailed reply and to answer the charges. In the reply/say dated 06th of December, 2016, in paragraph 6, he stated that he is not admitting the draft charges framed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in paragraph 43 of the judgment given in Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 2016. It is relevant to state that even after we framed the charges against him, he has not filed any detailed reply and has not replied to the charges. Instead of filing detailed reply or replying the charges, he filed Criminal Application Nos.7 of 2017 and 08 of 2017 on 22nd February, 2017, which are dismissed on that day.
8] Though, on 1st of February, 2017, we inquired from respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke whether he intends to engage ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 ::: 7 cricp7.16.odt lawyer, he continued to appear in-person and filed the applications and argued on 8th February, 2017 and 22nd February, 2017. On 23rd February, 2017, vakalatnama is filed on behalf of respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke and Shri C.J. Joveson, Advocate argued on his behalf Criminal Application Nos.10 of 2017 and 09 of 2017 and then Shri C.J. Joveson, Advocate argued today Criminal Application Nos.12/2017, 13/2017, 11/2017, 15/2017 and 14/2017. These criminal applications came to be disposed of today in the morning session. At 1.30 p.m. (lunch break), it was told that we will assemble at 3.00 pm. When we assembled at 3.00 pm, Shri C.J. Joveson, Advocate submitted that some application filed by respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke is under consideration by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and as per his instructions, it was to be considered at 3.00 p.m. We thought it appropriate that an affidavit on behalf of the respondent should be placed on record and we adjourned the matter till 4.00 p.m. At 4.00 p.m., when we assembled, Shri C.J. Joveson, Advocate submitted that as per his instructions, orders are not yet passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 :::
8 cricp7.16.odt 9] Considering the earlier history and the conduct of respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke and as we have examined the matter with the assistance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor till 1.30 p.m., but could not start with the judgment because of lunch break, when at 4.00 p.m. it was told to us that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has not yet passed any orders on the application, which according to the respondent was to be considered at 3.00 p.m., we decided to proceed with the matter. 10] On 8th of February, 2017, following charges were framed against respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke :-
(1) You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have
instituted various civil and criminal
proceedings in this Court, against the sitting
Judges of this Court, the officers of this Court, including lawyers and the Registrar, as are pointed out in this order, which are frivolous and vexatious and thereby you have committed an act of abuse of process of the Court, amounting to contempt of Court.
(2) You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have made statements of facts before this Court recorded in the orders dated 20.4.2016 and 25.4.2016 and contained in Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2016 and the pursis Stamp Nos.5462 of 2016 and 5811 of 2016, which you knew and believed to be false, so as to ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 ::: 9 cricp7.16.odt browbeat the Court on the basis of a false case of recusal and indulging in the activity of bench- hunting.
(3) In various litigations as are instituted
and the publications, which are referred
to in the order (in Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 2016) you, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have used wild, intemperate, unfounded, unwarranted and irresponsible allegations scandalizing the Court and making a scurrilous attack on the Judges in person and the officers of the Court, including the Government Pleader, other lawyers, and the Registrar at the Bench at Nagpur of the Bombay High Court. The allegations are made with the object, intent and motive of maligning the reputation of the Judicial Officers of the Court resulting in interference in the course of justice and the administration of law by the Courts, which amounts to contempt of Court.
(4) You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have misconducted yourself and indulged in activities with intention of scandalising and lowering the authority of this Court.
(5) You, Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have misconducted yourself and indulged in activities prejudicial to the course of judicial proceedings and interfering and obstructing the administration of justice.
Respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke has chosen not to reply the charges. The charges which we framed are substantially based on ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 ::: 10 cricp7.16.odt the draft charges framed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment given in Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 2016. The learned Single Judge has extensively considered the material on record and the conduct of the respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke. As the respondent has chosen not to reply the charges, we feel that again we should not delve into the matter specifically when we find that the conclusions of the learned Single Judge are self-speaking, based on documentary evidence on record.
11] Ms. K.S.Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the acts of the respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke as culled out in the judgment given in Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 2016 and the draft charges framed by the learned Single Judge amounts to criminal contempt of Court. 12] The observations of the learned Single Judge, recorded in the judgment given in Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 2016, are self-speaking. Respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke has not challenged the judgment given in Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 2016. Though, the respondent has filed an application seeking ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 ::: 11 cricp7.16.odt review of the above judgment, it is not earnestly and sincerely prosecuted by him. Respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke has not filed any detailed reply submitting his explanation. Respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke has not replied to the charges framed against him by the order passed on 8th of February, 2017. In these facts, we hold that respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke is guilty of committing criminal contempt.
13] As respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke is not present today and Shri C.J. Joveson, Advocate, who has filed vakalatnama on his behalf, has expressed his inability to argue the matter on merits, we feel it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke to make his submissions on the point of punishment / sentence / fine.
14] List the suo-motu Criminal Contempt Petition No. 07 of 2016 on 28th of February, 2017 at 10.30 a.m. for considering the point of awarding punishment / sentence / fine. Shri C.J. Joveson, Advocate, representing respondent - Satish Mahadeorao Uke, is present in the Court. In his presence, it is directed that respondent - ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 :::
12 cricp7.16.odt Satish Mahadeorao Uke shall remain present before this Court on 28th of February, 2017 at 10.30 a.m. JUDGE JUDGE DATED : 28 th FEBRUARY, 2017
15. By the judgment delivered yesterday (27-02-2017), we have held that the respondent Satish Mahadeorao Uke is guilty of committing criminal contempt. The contemnor Satish Mahadeorao Uke was absent yesterday. Shri C.J. Joveson, Advocate who has filed power on behalf of the contemnor expressed his inability to argue the matter on merits submitting that he is not instructed to argue the matter on merits. In this situation, we felt it appropriate to adjourn the matter to enable the contemnor to make his submissions on the point of punishment/sentence. But the contemnor has again chosen to remain absent. Shri C.J. Joveson, Advocate prayed that he be discharged as he is not given instructions by the contemnor to argue the matter. As Shri C.J. Joveson, Advocate had expressed his inability to argue the contempt petition on merits yesterday, we ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 ::: 13 cricp7.16.odt proceeded in the matter with the assistance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. In this situation, the question of discharging him does not arise as he himself has expressed his inability to argue the matter.
16. The contemnor has not filed any application explaining his absence or seeking exemption from personal appearance or adjournment. We have no other alternative but to proceed with the matter.
i) We have already recorded that the contemnor has not filed his reply to the draft charges framed by the learned Single Judge (Shri R.K. Deshpande, J.) in the judgment given in Civil Revision Application No.26/2016.
ii) We have already recorded that the contemnor has not replied the charges framed by us by the order passed on 08-02-2017.
iii) The facts on record show that the only attempt of the contemnor had been to protract the matter and even at the cost of making accusations and allegations against the Judges. ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 :::
14 cricp7.16.odt
iv) When the contemnor saw that his gimmicks are not working and by the order passed on 22-02-2017 we clarified that we will be proceeding with the hearing of the contempt petition on 23- 02-2017, he filed several applications through his Advocate, one of it being with prayer for adjourning the hearing of the matter to enable his Advocate to prepare and argue the matter. Expressing our displeasure, we adjourned the hearing of the criminal contempt petition for 27-02-2017.
v) On 27-02-2017 the contemnor filed several applications, one of it being Criminal Application No.15/2017 alongwith which he placed on record copy of writ petition filed by him at the Principal Seat challenging the vires of Sections 2(c), 12, 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking declaration that the proceedings of this criminal contempt are unconstitutional and void ab initio and praying for a writ of mandamus against the Hon'ble Chief Justice directing Her Ladyship to consider the petitioner's representation seeking transfer of this criminal contempt petition. The Hon'ble Chief Justice is impleaded as respondent in this petition.
vi) The contemnor has filed reply dated 06-12-2016 to the show cause notice stating as follows :
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 :::
15 cricp7.16.odt "In the beginning itself the respondent is stating that he is having highest honour and respect for the majesty of this Hon'ble Court and placing his unconditional apology before this Hon'ble Court for any act that this Hon'ble Court considers as a wilful contempt of this Hon'ble Court." It is clear that the contemnor has not tendered unconditional apology and the apology is qualified, as per his understanding that he is being tried for wilful contempt and overlooking that as per the draft charges, he is prosecuted for criminal contempt.
vii) After we passed the order on 08-02-2017 and initiated proceedings for criminal contempt, the contemnor has not filed any reply. The contemnor has not replied the charges framed by us on 08-02-2017.
viii) The conduct of the contemnor in filing frivolous applications, not filing reply and not answering the charges framed by this Court shows that the statement made by him in the reply dated 06-12-2016 is not a bona fide apology. Moreover, as stated earlier, after the proceedings for criminal contempt are initiated against the contemnor, he has not tendered any apology. The conduct of the contemnor throughout has been atrociously ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 ::: 16 cricp7.16.odt audacious.
17. In the above facts, the contemnor is liable for the maximum punishment provided under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, as this is first instance that respondent/ contemnor is being punished and considering his age, we are of the view that he should be punished with simple imprisonment for two months and with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine he should undergo simple imprisonment for further period of fifteen days.
18. As per the order passed on 08-02-2017, the respondent/ contemnor has furnished cash security of Rs.2,00,000/- by depositing the amount with the Registry of this Court. Out of this amount, by the order passed on 27-02-2017, we have directed that Rs.1,00,000/- be forfeited as he failed to appear on 23-02-2017 and 27-02-2017. Out of the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, the charges of video recording shall be paid by the Registrar (Administration) of this Court. While accepting the request made by the respondent/ contemnor for video recording of the proceedings we expressed that ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 ::: 17 cricp7.16.odt the initial charges would be borne by the State Government, however, as the matter progressed, the respondent/contemnor protracted the matter because of which the video recording is required to be done on 23-02-2017, 27-02-2017 and today i.e. 28-02-2017. Because of this, we are saddling this liability on the respondent/ contemnor.
We direct that after paying the charges of video recording the balance amount should also be forfeited.
19. As per the order passed on 18-07-2016, the respondent/ contemnor has furnished security bond of Rs.51,000/- signed by Shri Yug Rajeev Kumar. The respondent/contemnor has been avoiding to appear before this Court. We direct that if the respondent/ contemnor fails to surrender of his own volition till 03-03-2017, the amount of Rs.51,000/- shall be recovered from Shri Yug Rajeev Kumar.
20. By the order passed on 01-02-2017, we restrained the respondent/contemnor from filing any application, complaint or proceedings against any official/employee of this Court, against any ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 ::: 18 cricp7.16.odt Advocate of this Court, against Government Pleader/ Additional Government Pleader and/or Assistant Government Pleader and any Sitting Judge of this Court, until further orders. We recorded that the respondent/contemnor may pursue his request with the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of any other Bench and the right of the respondent/contemnor to challenge the judgment/order cannot be curbed by this Court. Now as the charges framed against the respondent/contemnor are proved, we feel it appropriate to continue the restraint order clarifying that if the respondent/contemnor intends to move any application/complaint or proceedings, he may file an application seeking leave before the Registrar(Judicial) of this Court and if such application is filed, it shall be placed before the Bench taking up the criminal contempt petition registered against the respondent/contemnor as per the order passed on 08-02-2017.
21. The restraint order passed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment given in Civil Revision Application No.26/2016 shall also continue until further orders and if the respondent contemnor intends to take any action in the matter, he can do so by following the procedure as stated in that judgment.
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 :::
19 cricp7.16.odt
22. We clarify that the other applications filed by the respondent/contemnor are not considered by us as the respondent/contemnor has not pressed these applications. The applications are kept pending to be considered as and when pressed by the respondent/contemnor.
23. The Registry to take steps as per Rule 26 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 under Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Sides Rules, 1960.
24. As the respondent/contemnor is not present and his Advocate Shri C.J. Joveson, Advocate is also not present, we direct that the certified copy of this judgment be handed over to the respondent/contemnor by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court as and when he approaches him for it.
25. The memory chip/chips of video recording shall be kept in a sealed cover signed by the Registrar (Administration), Registrar ::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 ::: 20 cricp7.16.odt (Judicial), Court Sheristedar Shri C.S. Zadgaonkar and Court Sheristedar Shri V.S. Eknathe. It is clarified that the chip/chips of video recording or the copies in any form shall not be given to anybody without prior permission of the Court. The sealed envelope shall not be opened unless it is permitted by the Court. The sealed envelope be kept in custody of Registrar (Administration) of this Court.
JUDGE JUDGE
Diwale1-12/Adgokar-13-21
::: Uploaded on - 28/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2017 01:13:11 :::