Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
State Of A.P. Rep. By Advocate General vs Dr. A. Gopal Menon, Secretary, ... on 5 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(2)ALD(CRI)386, 1996(3)ALT296, 1996 A I H C 4759, (1996) 3 ANDHLD 675, (1996) 3 ANDH LT 296, 1996 APLJ(CRI) 1 364
Author: A.S. Bhate
Bench: A.S. Bhate
JUDGMENT A.S. Bhate, J.
1. These two Criminal Contempt Cases against respondent, Dr. A. Gopal Menon are being taken up and disposed of by a common judgment.
2. In Contempt Case No334 of 1996, this Court has initiated suo motu proceedings for contempt Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, (70 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). These proceedings were initiated on basis of an alleged grievance representation sent by respondent to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court. The background needs to be stated in brief only.
3. The respondent sent a Grievance Petition dated 30th August, 1995 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court stating thus:
"The adverse party in Crl.P. 1960/94 filed by Sri R. Subash Reddy, Lawyer suspiciously filed forged sale deed and fictitious documents, and exercised considerable influence on Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, who presided over the matter became a puppet in the hands of Sri R. Subash Reddy, Advocate, overlooked the material evidence quashed the trial proceedings in C.C. 2173 and 2174 of 1994 pending before VI Metropolitan Magistrate.
On my representation, your Lordship was kind enough to post my matter of Review Petition 1960 of 1994 before another Judge, Justice Ramesh Madhav Bapat, who was again influenced by Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, and Sri R. Subhash Reddy, Advocate, who insulted and humiliated me appearing party-in-person in S.R. 5830/95 in Crl.P. 1960/94 and overlooked my submission and dismissed my valuable rights in Review Petition.
Thus both Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao and Justice Ramesh Madhav Bapat came under the direct influence of Sri R. Subhash Reddy Advocate notorious manipulator denied Justice in my matter and thus it is a prima facie abuse of process of Court established here beyond doubt. Now I have filed a Crl. Misc. Petition in C.C. 676 of 1994 Under Section .195 and 340 Cr.P.C. It is registered as USR 1792/95 in C.C. 676/94 posted before a Division Bench Justice Venkatram Reddy and Justice Bapat. There is a , great danger, justice will be denied by Sri Ramesh Madhav Bapat sitting with Justice Venkatram Reddy highly prejudiced. A copy of Crl.M.P. (USR 1792/95) filed herewith for perusal."
4. On receipt of this Grievance Petition the Hon'ble the Chief Justice directed the petition to be posted before the Bench which was already hearing a Criminal Contempt Case against the respondent. The said Contempt Case was 676 of 1994. That is how the matter came up before the Bench which was dealing with C.C. No. 676 of 1994.
5. Contempt Case No. 335 of 1996 is outcome of respondent having filed a counter in the Contempt Case No. 676 of 1994 which was pending before the Bench. The background of this case may be stated.
6. One Mohd. Mumtaz Taher Khan (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') sought eviction of A. Narayana Menon from certain premises situated in Vidyanagar area of Hyderabad under the provisions of Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(1)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Rent Act') by instituting an Eviction Petition R.C. 167 of 1988 before the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The said proceedings were initiated on the ground that the landlord required the premises bona fide for personal occupation and also on the ground that there was wilful default in payment of rent committed by A. Narayana Menon. The landlord had averred in the said petition that the previous owner Mohd. Salauddin sold the suit premises by a registered sale deed to the landlord on 24-10-1987. The vendor had attorned the tenancy of Narayana Menon in favour of the landlord by letter dated 24-10-1987 addressed to Narayana Menon. Narayana Menon was directed to pay rents to the landlord from 1-11-1987 by the vendor. The Rent Controller by his order dated 24-2-1992 passed an order of eviction on the sole ground that the requirement of the landlord of the premises for bona fide occupation was genuine. An appeal was preferred by Narayana Menon vide R.A. No. 162 of 1992 before the Chief Judge of City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed on 23-4-1993 but three months time was granted for vacating the premises. The appellate order was further challenged by C.R.P. No. 2427 of 1993. The said C.R.P. came up before J. Eswara Prasad, J., and at the stage of admission itself the revision was dismissed on 30-7-1993. However, the Court granted three months time for vacating the tenanted premises. A Review Petition bearing No. 13616 in the said dismissed C.R.P. was preferred for reviewing the order in the C.R.P. The ground for review was that there were two documents to show that the landlord owned another building and his bona fide requirement was not true. J. Eswara Prasad, J., dismissed the Reivew Application by order dated 24-9-1993 but again extended the time for vacating the premises upto 30th November, 1993. The Court observed that the documents sought to be relied upon in the Review Application did not form part of the record nor were they produced along with the appropriate petition for producing additional evidence. Narayana Menon then moved the Surpeme Court by way of Special Leave Petition questioning the orders of this Court in the C.R.P. as well as in the Review C.M.P. The Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. on 26-11-1993 but granted six months time from the day of order of dismissal for vacating the premises on giving usual undertaking. In the meantime Sri Narayana Menon instituted O.S. No. 1213/1993 before V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of his title and ownership to the premises for which the dispute was going on in the eviction proceedings. However, Sri Narayan Menon did file an undertaking on 9-12-1993 before the Supreme Court stating, inter alia, that he would abide by the orders passed by the Apex Court dated 26-11-1993. It was however stated that the undertaking was without any prejudice to the rights adhered to in O.S. No. 1213 of 1993 which was pending before the said City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Sri Narayan Menon however, did not vacate the premises on his own and was finally evicted on 6-6-1994 in execution proceedings. The Contempt Proceedings were initiated against the respondent in C.C. No. 676 of 1994 on motion made by the learned Advocate General on four grounds; first was the incident of 20-7-1993 when the respondent met the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court and made a grievance that he was not being supplied with the certified copy of the judgment in R.A. No. 162 of 1992. When the Chief Judge made enquiries he found that respondent being a third party, he was required to file an affidavit for claiming certified copy of that appeal and therefore, the Chief Judge asked respondent to give such affidavit. The respondent started brow-beating the learned Judge and threatened that respondent was related to Hon'ble Justice Sri Sivaraman Nair of this Court and also the then Acting Chief Justice Sri Lakshmana Rao was his good friend. The respondent stated that many High Court Judges were his good friends and gave an implicit threat to the Chief Judge that he knew how to deal with the matter. He then made remarks against the Chief Judge which need not be stated here. The Chief Judge made a report about the incident. The second incident was in addressing a letter dated 28-12-1993 by the respondent to the Chief Justice of this Court for permission to meet him and for presenting a petition of Corrupt Practices of Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. It was alleged in the said petition that the Chief Judge and his Bench Clerk allowed four sale deeds in case No. 162 of 1967 and thus helped in obtaining eviction order by fraud. The third incident was dated 28-12-1993 when the respondent addressed letters to Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court and Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad alleging corrupt practices against the Judges. The details are not necessary. The fourth incident was involving addressing of letter dated 27-1-1994 to the then Chief Justice of this Court. In this letter also certain remakrs contemptuous to the Judges were made. Thus respondent by baseless and denigrating remarks about the honesty and integrity of members of the judiciary committed contempt. That is how the Contempt Proceedings were initiated by the Advocate General. In the second counter to the said proceedings dated 5-12-1995 which was titled as "Comprehensive Counter Affidavit" the respondent made allegations after referring to C.R.P. No. 2427/93 as follows:-
(4). Being aggrieved by the orders of the lower Appellate Court the matter was agitated before the High Court in C.R.P. 2427/93 by Senior Counsel Sri K.V. Satyanarayana and Review C.R.P. 13616 of 1993 by Sri Bhikshapati (now sitting Judge) to remit the forged documents and other material evidence mentioned in supra and set aside the Orders of lower Court. First order in C.R.P. 2427 of 1993 presided over by Justice Parvata Rao, followed by Justice Sri Y. Bhaskar Rao, who ordered to the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court to inform the Hon'ble Court the orders passed in I.A. 428 of 1993. Meanwhile, the counsel for the adverse party Sri R. Subash Reddy, advocate managed the matter with then Presiding Officer thus there is a abuse of process of Court. However, the High Court made in the order "some buildings are identified in the name of wife of Sri Mumtaz Taher Khan which will not be admitted as the same is not filed by a petition". The Supreme Court without application of mind confirmed the orders of II Addl. Rent Controller and High Court order in C.R.P. and review C.R.P. ignored all our submissions made in S.L.P. 16688/94.
"Para (5). In a bid to protect our valuable rights of the respondent a Grievance Representation indicating therein the facts was submitted on 23-12-1993 before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, with a request to inquire the forgery and fraud played by Sri Mumtaz Taher Khan and counsels, Sri Nissar Ahmed and S.A. Quddus and order for "a total Court inspection of documents". The Chief Judge neither attended to file a complaint Under Section 195 nor rejected the same, but in fact violated Rule 9 Sub-section(4) (Rules framed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh) under Contempt of Court Act, 1973 stipulates that "Before making reference the Subordinate Court shall hold a preliminary enquiry by issuing a show cause notice to respondent after hearing him the Court shall write a concise reasoned order of reference about the alleged contempt."
It may be stated that the Contempt Case No. 676 of 1994 was later on disposed of by the Bench dealing with the case. The comprehensive counter referred above dated 5-2-1995 which was filed by the respondent, is subject matter of the present contempt proceeding. This Court took suo motu action for the contents of para (14) of the comprehensive counter. The order of taking cognizance was passed on 2-4-1996.
7. In both the matters the learned Advocate General was requested to conduct the petition. In both the cases as the cognizance was taken on the one and the same day, the respondent was directed to take notice as he was present in person before the Court and two weeks time was granted for appearance before the Court Accordingly the next date was fixed on 23-4-1996.
8. When the matter came up before the Court on 23-4-1996, the respondent was present in both the cases. The respondent filed counter in each of the case. In C.C No. 334 of 1996 his counter is as follows:-
""Counter Affidavit Tendering Apology".
I, Dr. A. Gopal S/o late A.S. Menon, R/o 12-13-882, Hanumannagar, Tarnaka, Hyderabad-17, respondent in 334/96 do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm that some upleasant phrases appearing in my grievance representation dt.30-8-95 addressed to his Lordship the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh, High Court wherein I feel sorry and hereby tender my unconditional apology praying this Hon'ble Court to accept the same and close the contempt proceedings initiated against me."
In C.C. No. 335 of 1996 his counter is as follows:-
""Counter Affidavit Tendering Apology"
I. Dr. A. Gopal, S/o late A.S. Menon R/o 12-13-882, Hanumannagar, Taranaka, Hyderabad-17, respondent in 335 of 1996 do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm that some unpleasant phrases appearing in my counter affidavit filed in C.C. No. 676of 1994 filed in this Hon'ble Court, wherein I feel sorry and hereby tender my unconditional apology praying this Hon'ble Court to accept the same and close the contempt proceedings initiated against me".
9. On 23-4-1996 the learned Advocate General as well as the respondent, who was present in person, asked for time for further proceedings. At that time only, we suggested to the respondent that as the matter involved serious proceedings under the provisions of the Act, he should better engage a counsel and take his advice in the matter. The proceedings were then posted to 14-6-1996 as the summer vacation was to intervene in between. On 14-6-1996 when the cases came up before us, the respondent did not appear though he was given a specific direction to appear in person. He had given an undertaking that he would, remain present in person on 14-6-1996. In view of the absence of the respondent in both the matters, we directed issue of Non-Bailable Warrant for securing his presence and posted the matter on 12-7-1996. In the mean time on 18-6-1996 the respondent appeared and filed two petitions in each of the Contempt Case. The petitions were for advancing the date of hearing and for recalling the order of issue of Non-Bailable Warrant for securing his presence. After making necessary enquiry about the cause of absence of respondent on 14-6-1996, we thought it fit to recall the warrant of arrest. The respondent was asked to furnish a bond in each of the Contempt Case. It may be pointed out that by this time on 18th as well as on 19th June, 1996, the respondent appeared along with Sri C. Obulapathi Chowdary, a Senior Advocate of this Court. When the cases came up before us on 19-6-1996, Sri Obulapathi Chowdary began arguing the matters by stating that by the Counters filed already by the respondent, he had tendered apology in each of the cases and that the cases may be disposed of in view of the apology tendered. We have however, asked him to go through the counters carefully and to consider whether it was necessary to file any further counter in both the matters. Though Sri Obulapathi Chowdary was not very much keen on filing further counters, we thought it fit that he should go through all the papers and counters filed already and then decide the future course. We therefore, posted the matter to 28-6-1996.
10. When the matter came up before us on 28-6-1996 we found that Sri Obulapathi Chowdary had not filed any additional counter. When we questioned him he stated that it was not necessary in view of the counters filed already. Thereafter we heard the learned Advocate General and asked Sri Obulapathi Chowdary to advance his arguments in both the cases. The learned counsel for the respondent however, did not go beyond repeatedly saying "What argument can be there now. The respondent has already filed his counter at the earliest stage seeking apology". We asked him to satisfy us if there was in fact contempt or not and if there be any contempt what punishment was appropriate. However, the learned Counsel struck to his arguments that as the apology was sought at the earliest, the same may be considered. As we found that no further point would be served after hearing the repeated pleas of the learned counsel we posted the matter today for orders.
11. The first question naturally would be whether contempt has been committed by the respondent in both or in one of the cases? The contempt alleged against the respondent is obviously contempt as defined in Section 2(c)(i) of the Act. Lord Denning in R.V. Metropolitan Police Commer. Exp. Black-burn, (1968) 2 All.E.R. 319 had observed:
"All we would ask is that those who criticise will remember mat, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticism. We cannot enter into public controversy, still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication. Exposed as weare to the winds of criticism, nothing which is said by this person or that, nothing which is written by this pen or that, will deter us from doing what we believe is right; nor I would add, from saying what the occasion requires provided that it is pertinent to the matter in hand. Silence is not an option when things are ill done."
It is well said that the confidence of the public in the impartial administration of justice will be undermined if persons are allowed to attack judicial conduct with impunity. Insulting a Judge engaged in judicial work or imputing corrupt practices to him in discharge of his official duties is a very grave contempt. It is known as Scandalising the Court. The test for determining whether this kind of contempt has been committed is to find out whether the act in question has a tendency to pollute the fountain of justice and whether it has a tendency to destory die confidence of common man in the administration of justice.
12. The Supreme Court in the Editor and Publishers of the Times of India In Re., (1953) SCJ 38 = (1953) SCR 215 observed:
"If an impression is created in the minds of the public that the Judges of the highest Court in the land act on extraneous considerations in deciding cases the confidence of the whole country in the administration of justice is bound to be undermined and no greater mischief than that can possibly be imagined."
It will thus be seen that if the writing of the respondent creates in mind of public an impression that Judges in the land act on extraneous considerations in dealing with the cases before them, the confidence of the general public would be eroded in the whole administration of justice. This harm is immense. It is this harm which has to be avoided by initiating the proceedings against the person, who indulges in such acts. Applying such tests, we find that in the Grievance Petition the respondent has clearly imputed to a very Senior Judge of this Court Sri Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao and another Senior Judge of this Court Sri Justice Ramesh Madhav Bapat that they were influenced by an advocate and that they decided the cases on extraneous considerations. The imputations against both Hon'ble Judges of this Court are direct and very serious and they are bound to give wrong signals to the general public. There is absolutely no doubt in our mind that these statements fall squarely within the definition of Section 2(c)(i) of the Act.
13. Similarly as regards the averments made in the so called Comprehensive Affidavit in C.C. No. 676 of 1994, which is the subject matter of contempt in C.C. No. 335 of 1996. It is indisputable that the imputation is that advocate Sri R. Subhash Reddy managed the matter with the Presiding Judge of the Court. What is most despicable further is that the respondent has alleged "the Supreme Court without application of mind confirmed the orders............"Thus the respondent has committed ex facie contempt in this counter also.
14. It may be pointed out that the learned Counsel of respondent has not made any attempt to contend that contempt has not been committed by the respondent in any of the two cases. The learned Advocate General has rightly submitted that the contempt is very serious in either of the cases and the respondent is guilty of committing contempt in each of the cases. We are fully satisfied that the respondent has committed Criminal Contempt in each of the cases.
15. We may state that the Judges never claim to be always right but no one is more conscious of the limitations and fallibility than a Judge himself. This is because of training and culture of the Judicial Officers from the last wrung to the highest. However, this does not mean that any one can attribute motives qua Judges for deciding a particular case.
16. Now turning to the aspect of punishment we are very much alive to the fact that the power to punish for Contempt of Court is a drastic power and while exercising the said power the Court should take all the circumstances into consideration. But there is need for recognising the importance of maintaining the authority of Courts in punishing those, who interfere with the administration of justice by demoralizing the Courts and Judges. When such act takes form of attempt to depreciate the authority of the Courts, the Courts cannot be silent spectators. We wish to warn and caution those, who indulge in their motivated and unwarranted criticism by vilification of the Judges and the institution of the administration of justice that they should do so in their own peril. Before embarking on path of criticism, the concerned person must take serious notice of these observations. The Supreme Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, had an occasion to observe as follows:-
"'Scandalising the Court' is a convenient way of describing a publication which, although it does not relate to any specific case either past or pending or any Specific Judge, is a scurrilous attack on the judiciary as a whole, which is calculated to undermine the authority of the Courts and public confidence in the administration of justice. In Borrie and Lowe's Law of Contempt (2nd Edition) at p.226 it is stated that the necessity for this branch of contempt lies in the idea that without well regulated laws a civilised community cannot survive. It is therefore thought important to maintain the respect and dignity of the Court and its officers, whose task it is to uphold and enforce the law, because without such respect, public faith in the administration of justice would be undermined and the law itself would fall into disrepute."
17. The learned Counsel for the respondent repeatedly contended that in view of the apology sought by the respondent immediately and at the first opportunity, the apology may be accepted and the contemnor may be let off. We are not at all impressed by this argument. Sri Obulapathi Chowdary has relied upon the decision in Mulkh Raj v. State of Punjab, . It is true that the Supreme Court observed in that case that if the apology is tendered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace it can be acted upon. But the Court observed:
"Unless the apology is offerred at the earliest opportunity and in good grace it is shorn of penitence."
Sri Obulapathi Chowdary harped on the point that the apology in the counter was tendered at the earliest opportunity. However, we have extracted the whole counter. There is absolutely no grace shown in the said 'so called apology'. The respondent has stated that 'some unpleasant phrases appeared in the Grievance Petition and for which he feels sorry'. Same is case with the counter in C.C. No. 335 of 1996. We are surprised to hear from the learned Counsel that this is in good grace and a true apology. When serious charges are levelled against the Judges, to say that they are unpleasant phrases clearly shows that the respondent was not at all penitent. There is no apology from the bottom of his heart. The respondent is merely trying to throw dust in the eyes of the Court. In the name of seeking apology he is in fact trying to paint that no contempt was committed but only unpleasant words were used. We do not find any sense of remorse or contrition in either of the counters. Though the Judges by their very nature of occupation and duties do have immense patience and equanimity which is inbuilt in them, that should not be taken as a sign of weakness. Trying to throw dust in the eyes of the Court by tendering such sort of apology is in a sense aggravating the act already committed and is like rubbing salt on the injury.
18. Considering all the aspects we do not accept the so called apology tendered, having regard to the gravity of contempt commited by the respondent and having regard to the fact that respondent having faced contempt proceedings already in C.C. No. 676 of 1994 has not found it necessary to correct himself. In the circumstances, we convict the respondent Under Section 12 of the Act in C.C. No. 334 of 1996 and sentence him to two months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default fifteen days further simple imprisonment.
19. We convict the respondent in C.C. No. 335 of 1996 also Under Section 12 of the Act. The respondent is sentenced to two months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default fifteen days further simple imprisonment.
20. It is made clear that the sentences in both the cases shall run concurrently.