Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Dharam Raj Singh on 14 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000CRILJ4574
Bench: G.P. Mathur, A.K. Yog
ORDER
1. It is pointed out that an Advocate committed offending act on 24-8-1998 and one year therefrom having elapsed, the Court may consider the question of limitation before taking cognizance of the contempt under Section 20. Contempt of Courts Act read with Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-I Allahabaad High Court Rules called Rules of Court).
2. Before proceeding further, it is worth while to deal with the limitation aspect of the case.
3. Shri Shambhoo Nath, II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Judicial Magistrate. Hamirpur submitted a report dated 28-8-1998 to the District Judge, Hamipur who, in turn, made a reference to the High Court vide letter dated 31-10-1998. A detailed note was prepared by the office giving details of the acts - committed by Sri Dharam Raj Singh and Sri Jai Karan Singh. Advocates which constituted contempt of the subordinate Court. The Registrar submitted 'statement of the case' vide his note dated 27-10-1998 before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Chapter XXXV-E Rule 4(c), Rules of Court and concluded, the lone temper and rowdyism created by Sri Dharam Raj Singh, Advocate squarely falls within the definition of contempt.
4. Accordingly same day, i.e. on 27-10-1998, the Chief Justice exercising his judicial discretion, approved this 'statement of facts' by endorsing 'Yes' on the concerned file. It shows the Chief Justice had taken cognizance of the matter and ordered the matter to be listed before concerned bench for further proceedings.
5. Rules 4 and 5 of Chapter XXXV-E Rules of Court read.
4. Civil and criminal contempt's presentation after stamp reporter :-
(a) Every case relating to civil cotempt shall be presented before the Bench of single Judge constituted for that purpose.
(b) Every case of criminal contempt coming under Section 15 of the Act shall be presented before the Bench of not less than two Judges constituted for the purpose.
(c) Provided that every case of contempt of Court presented before the Court shall bear the report of the Stamp Reporter as to sufficiency of Court-fee paid and also about limitation. References relating to contempt of Court received on Administrative side from the subodinate courts shall, along with the office report with respect thereto, be laid before the Chief Justice, who shall have the discretion to file the same or to order that the same be laid before the Bench concerned for further proceedings in connection with the case.
5. Issuance of notice.- Such allegations contained in the petition as appears to the Court to make out a prima facie case of contempt of Court against the person concerned, shall be reduced into charge or charges by the Court against such person, and notice shall be issued only with respect to those charges :
Provided that the Court shall not issue notice if more than a year has elapsed from the alleged act of contempt of Court.
Sections 15, 20 and 23 of the Act reproduced below :-
15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases.- (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by-
(a) the Advocate-General, or
(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General.
[(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.] (2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate Court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate Court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
(3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.
Explanation.- In this section, the expression "Advocate-General" means.-
(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General or the Solicitor General;
(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established;
(c) in relation to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
20. Limitation for actions for contempt.- No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
23. Power of Supreme Court and High Courts to make rules.- The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, any High Court, may make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, providing for any matter relating to its procedure.
6. In Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act, expression used is "no Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt..." whereas Proviso to the Rules provides- "...Court shall not issue notice..." The two expressions are distinct and denote two different stages. 'Initiation' of proceedings is bound to be anterior in time and hence before - issuance of notice - which is only one of the subsequent steps in the process of "Initiation.
7. Rule 4(c) of Chapter XXXV-E makes it clear that the procedure contemplated under 'Rules of Court' is different in a case under Section 15(1) vis-a-vis the procedure in the case of a reference from subordinate Court under Section 15(2) of the Act.
8. In the contempt matters, petition under Section 15(1) is presented before the concerned Bench without being processed or routed though the Chief Justice. But in a case of reference being received from a subordinate Court under Section 15(2). Contempt of Courts Act matter shall not go for "further proceedings" before the concerned Bench unless cognizance is taken by the Chief Justice under Chapter XXXV-E, Rule 4(c), Rules of Court. Hence in the 'contempt cases' received on reference from subordinate Courts the "cognizance" or "initiation" of the contempt proceedings takes place when the Chief Justice directs the case to be laid before concerned Bench for "further proceedings." The concerned Bench at this juncture has no occasion to dismiss it in limine but to frame charges and issue notice.
9. The Chief Justice under aforesaid Rule 5, when decides "to order the matter to be laid before the Bench for further proceedings," acts judicially. Once the Chief Justice has directed the case to be placed before the concerned Bench for 'further proceedings' within one year of the 'offending act' then the matter cannot be said to be barred under the Proviso to Rule 5, Rules of Court inasmuch as the Court has already initiated the proceeding under Section 20 of the Act.
10. Undoubtedly, the proviso in Rule 5 of Chapter XXXV-E of Rules (framed in exercise of delegated powers under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, called the 'Act'), cannot widen the scope or override statutory provision under the Act to the extent of contempt matters under Section 15(2) of the Act. 'Proviso' in Rule 5 of the Rules is ultra vires of the Act being beyond the Section in the Act itself. Aforesaid position in law is well settled by the Apex Court See :-
1. AIR 1997 SC 2502-paras 26 to 28 : 1997 (5) JT (SC) 272 Agriculture Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd.
2. AIR 1983 SC 550 : (1983) 2 SCC 402 (para 7) State of Karnataka v. H. Ganesh Kamath.
11. Expression "further proceedings" used in Rule 4(c) of the Rules, aforequoted, makes it abundantly clear that when the matter comes before the Bench, it is not the maiden point of consideration. In other words the 'concerned Bench' is not for the 'first one,' taking cognizance of the matter. Cognizance of the matter stands already taken and for the first time initiated by the Chief Justice. The concerned Bench evidently re-pushes the matter further. Time restriction sought to be placed by proviso to Rule 5, Rules of Court to this extent, is not applicable to the cases falling under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act and the said 'Proviso' is not relevant for the cases falling under Section 15(2). It may, if at all and at best, be referable to the cases falling under Section 15(2) only.
12. The Supreme Court in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 7 : AIR 1994 SC 120 Forest Range Officer v. P. Mohammad Ali (paras 6 to 8) and (1999) 4 SCC 103 enumerated the criterion and guideline to adhere to purposive interpretation avoiding manifest frustration of the purpose of the Act.
13. In the present case, as noticed above, the Chief Justice took cognizance well before expiry of 'one year' to be counted from commission of offending act and case was listed on at least three occasion before concerned Bench but it was apparently left out as there was none to bring to the notice of the Bench the danger of the limitation and its consequential mischief.
14. The judicial officer reported the matter promptly. The concerned District Judge made reference without delay. Registrar also submitted papers well within time and the Chief Justice was pleased to order for 'further action.' In compliance to the said order of the Chief Justice, the case was listed at least 'three times' before the concerned Bench within one year of the offending act.
15. In such matter the victim sufferer (though originator) sits on the fence in sanguine hope that this Court shall take cognizance and proceed in the matter in accordance with law and that the case shall be decided on merit. If proviso is to be interpreted literally, the matter shall go by default (though due to no fault of the complainant) but only because the Court did not or could not take up the case, invariably without even being conscious of the limitation factor. It is certainly bound to lead to serious erosion of the authority of Court as the guilty goes unnoticed and unpunished. Law does not permit an interpretation, which lacks good reasoning and begs for logic.
16. Prima facie Criminal Contempt No. 100 of 1998 is not barred by "limitation" under Section 20, Contempt of Courts Act.
17. Let further proceedings be drawn for committing contempt in accordance with law.