Madras High Court
Y.Rajasekara Reddy vs The Iii Metropolitan Magistrate on 11 February, 2014
Author: K.Kalyanasundaram
Bench: M.Jaichandren, K.Kalyanasundaram
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.02.2014
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
Cont.A.Sr.No.94266 of 2013
Y.Rajasekara Reddy
Managing Director,
R.S.R.Best Commodity (P) Ltd.,
Chennai, rep.by his father,
Y.Venkatarayalu
Authorised by my son
and daughter and the company ... Appellant
vs.
1.The III Metropolitan Magistrate,
G.T.Chennai-1.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Egmore, Chennai-8
and its complainant
STC Ltd., Bangalore & Chennai .. Respondents
Contempt Appeal preferred against the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in Contempt Petition Sr.No.8252 of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr.Y.Venkatarayalu
Party-in-person
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J.) This case is listed before us to consider the question of maintainability.
2.We have heard Mr.Y.Venkatarayalu-party in person and perused the records.
3.Mr.Y.Venkatarayalu is the father of the appellant Mr.Y.Rajasekara Reddy. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, had registered a case against the appellant and others, in Crime No.193 of 2008. It seems, the said Y.Venkatarayalu had filed a petition, in Crl.M.P.No.1957 of 2008, seeking permission of the learned Magistrate, to represent and conduct the case of his son, instead of engaging a counsel. The learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, dismissed the petition, on 4.6.2008. Against the said order, the said Y.Venkatarayalu, had filed a revision, in Crl.R.C.No.74 of 2008, before the First Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The learned Sessions Judge, by an order dated 12.10.2009, allowed the revision, directing the petitioner to produce the Power of Attorney or affidavit from the accused, before the trial Court, to conduct the case on behalf of his son.
4.Mr.Y.Venkatarayalu later filed a petition, before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, to punish the respondents for having dis-obeyed the order passed, in Crl.R.C.No.74 of 2008. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition as not maintainable. Against the said order, the present contempt appeal has been filed, under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but the registry has objected to the filing of the contempt appeal raising the issue of maintainability of the appeal.
5.As per Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, an appeal shall lie, as of right, from any order or decision of High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction, to punish for contempt. But in this case, the learned Sessions Judge had only dismissed the contempt application as not maintainable. A similar situation arose before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment reported in 2007(1)MLJ 117-K.K.Ramesh vs. Jaganathan, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Madurai City, Madurai, relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (1988) 3 SCC 26-D.N.Taneja vs. Bhajan Lal, has held that an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, can be filed only by the contemnor, who has been punished for contempt of Court.
6.In Mindnapore Peoples' Coop.Bank Ltd. And Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others-2006 (5) SCC 399, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles with regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings, as follows:
"11.The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarised thus:
"I.An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.
II.Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution.
III.In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties.
IV.Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of "jurisdiction to punish for contempt" and, therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which even the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.
V.If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal(if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra Court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases)."
7.In the light of the judgments of the Honourable Apex Court and of this Court, this contempt appeal is not maintainable.
8.It is also noted that the allegation of Mr.Y.Venkatarayalu is that the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate and the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Chennai, had violated the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.74 of 2008, thereby, refused to hand over the seized articles. We could see that the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, had only permitted the said Mr.Y.Venkatarayalu, to represent the case of his son, in the criminal case and no positive direction, as alleged by the appellant, was given. Therefore, the allegation that there is violation of the order passed in the revision case, cannot be countenanced. Hence, the contempt appeal is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected.
(M.J.J.) (M.K.K.S.J.)
11.02.2014
Index:yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
AND
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J
msk
Cont.A.Sr.No.94266 of 2013
11.02.2014