Bombay High Court
Sharad Sonu Wani vs K.B. @ Anna Hajare on 14 August, 2014
Bench: S.S. Shinde, P.R. Bora
Cri.CP2.14
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2007
Sharad Sonu Wani
Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
Occupation : Advocate,
residing at "Majestic",
M.L.A. Hostel, Room No. 301,
Opp: Regal Cinema Colaba,
Mumbai 400 005. ig ..CONTEMPT PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. K.B. @ Anna Hajare
Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
residing at Ralegan, Tq. Parner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. State of Maharashtra.
..RESPONDENTS.
....
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. P.R. Patil
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate for Respondent No.1.
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. G.K. Naik Thigale
....
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & P.R. BORA, JJ.
Reserved on : 07st August, 2014.
Pronounced on : 14th August, 2014.
PER COURT :-
This Contempt Petition is filed with the following prayers :-::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 :::
Cri.CP2.14 2 "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to initiate proceedings in contempt against Respondent No.1 for having issued press statements, more particularly referred to in the petition and haul Respondent No.1 for having committed criminal contempt as defined in the Contempt of Court Act."
(b) Such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require be granted to the petitioner."
2. The petitioner claims to be a social worker having active participation in several social organizations which work for upholding common citizen's right. It appears that, at the time of filing the contempt petition, the petitioner was a member of the Legislative Council. It is stated in the Petition that, the respondent no.1 claims to be a social worker and is resident of village Ralegan, Tq. Parner, Dist.
Ahmednagar. He claims to be acting against corruption in the society and has formed an organisation named as "Brashtachar Nirmoolan Jana Andolan". In nutshell the relevant facts which led to filing of criminal contempt petition, as disclosed in the Petition, are as under :-
(i) On 09.05.2003, the respondent no.1 made a statement to the press wherein he alleged that, four Ministers of the present Government in the State of Maharashtra are allegedly corrupt and also ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 3 made allegations of misappropriation of properties, fraud, criminal breach of trust etc. against them. The said statement was widely published in several newspapers throughout the State and other States.
Out of them, one of the Minister is Shri. Suresh Jain, Minister for Food and Civil Supplies.
(ii) Shri Suresh Jain immediately took exception to the aforesaid allegations made by respondent no.1 against him and sent notice calling upon respondent no.1 to substantiate the charges levelled against him or withdraw the allegations with apology which was served on the respondent. He was also informed that, in case of failure legal action would be taken against him. However, there was no response to those notice from the respondent no.1.
(iii) Earlier similar allegations of corruption were made against one Shri Babanrao Gholap, a Minister in the earlier B.J.P. -
Shivsena Government by the respondent no.1. Shri Gholap called upon respondent no.1 to substantiate the charges levelled against him or to withdraw the same with unconditional apology. Since respondent no.1 failed to do so, Shri Gholap filed a criminal complaint against respondent no.1 under sections 499 and 500 of the I.P. Code, in which the Court found respondent no.1 guilty and was ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 4 convicted for the said offence.
(iv) On 09.05.2003, a news item came to be published in the Marathi daily "Samana" attributing to respondent no.1 as author of the statement to the following effect :
"In the matter of Babanrao Gholap, he had managed the concerned Judge. He had also promised to give him a flat in Mumbai. The Judge had asked for two flats, Mr. Gholap allotted those flats to the Judge in the name of mother and brother. That, evidence for this is in possession of Mr. Hajare and for that reason alone Mr. Hajare was required to go to jail."
(v) On 10.05.2003, similar statement was also published in daily newspaper "Deshonnati". On 11.05.2003, a news item appeared in the newspaper "Deshonnati" attributing to respondent no.1 as author thereof, and apart from other allegations levelled against Shri Suresh Jain, respondent no.1 stated :
"Suresh Jain being a rich person can very well purchase justice also in the Court of law".
(vi) On 17.05.2003, the respondent no.1 published similar ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 5 news items in daily news paper "Punya Nagari".
. The aforesaid statement is a direct and frontal attack on the judiciary, which is one of the most important limbs in the democratic set up of our country wherein rule of law prevails. The said highly published inflammatory statements using derogatory remarks against the judiciary is attempt to create an impression in the mind of the common man that the judiciary in India is a salable commodity and that rich man can easily purchase justice. By making such statement, the respondent no.1 has committed contempt of Court and is liable to be punished for the same.
3. It appears from the Farad Sheet that, this Court issued notices to the respondents and the respondent no.1 filed affidavit in reply on 6th August, 2003. Thereafter, the Petition was listed from time to time for hearing and on 21 st February, 2006, this Court requested Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Assistant Government Pleader, to prepare draft charges and submit the same in two weeks. It also appears that, the Court on 20th June, 2006 directed to circulate the draft charges to the parties concerned. On 30 th June, 2006, this Court had taken on record draft charges filed by Mr. Nargolkar, A.G.P. The said draft charges read thus :-
::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 :::Cri.CP2.14 6 "1. That, you, the contemnor have made a statement reported in newspaper "Deshonnatti" of daily edition of 11.05.2003 to the effect that "Suresh Dada Jain being a rich person can very well purchase justice also in the Court of Laws", thereby trying to lower down the authority of the Court and Judicial System, in the eyes of the public at large and have thereby committed Contempt of Court as contemplated by Section 2(c) (i)(ii) and (iii) of Contempt of Courts Act.
2. That you, the contemnor have made a statement in Marathi daily "Samna" in its edition of 09.05.2003 to the effect that, Mr. Gholap had managed the concerned Judge himself. He had promised to give him a flat in Mumbai. The Judge had asked for two flats." By making such a statement, you the contemnor have lowered down the authority of the law and the Courts in the eyes of law and have tried to interfere in the administration of justice thereby committing an offence of Contempt of Court as contemplated by section 2(c)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
3. We, therefore, direct that you be tried by this High Court of Judicature on the said charges."
4. However, thereafter as it appears from perusal of the record, no substantive hearing has taken place or those draft charges have remained as draft charges. The matter was transferred from ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 7 Principal Seat at Mumbai to Aurangabad Bench of the High Court on 17.11.2006. Thereafter, by order dated 8 th August, 2011, this Court allowed the application filed by the respondent no.1 for exemption.
On 8th August, 2011, this Court allowed the petitioner to file an additional affidavit in the nature of rejoinder. Today, the Criminal Contempt Petition is heard on the point of accepting or otherwise apology tendered by the contemnor.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the pleadings in the Petition, annexures thereto, affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.1 on 6 th August, 2003 and also the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution of India and various judgments of this Court and also the Supreme Court. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the statements of respondent No.1 making inflammatory statements in the nature of direct and frontal attack on the judiciary were published in many newspapers and also in media.
The highly published inflammatory statements using derogatory remarks against the judiciary is an attempt to create and have created an impression in the mind of the common man that, the judiciary in India is a salable commodity and that, a rich man can easily purchase ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 8 justice which may not be in consonance with the law and/or rule of law. The aforesaid impression if conveyed to the masses, majority of whom are not aware and/or are ignorant of the judicial proceedings may carry an impression which may result in their loosing faith in the judiciary. Such an impression would be highly dangerous to the society which works on the principle of rule of law. As a matter of fact judiciary is one of the most sacred limbs in a democracy and a common man feels safe and assured only because he has faith in the judicial system and rule of law. The aforesaid statement that too of a person who claims to be a social activist and massiah against corruption tends to a penetrating effect amongst the masses and due to the image of respondent no.1 which is rightly or wrongly carried by the media and the media hype around him makes the aforesaid statement lethal and highly potent. It is submitted that, the aforesaid statement is in the nature of creating pressure on the judiciary and judges and is due to wide publicity in the media which does not ask for any substantiation and due to the so called image of respondent no.1 created by the media, the aforesaid statement lead to a direct interference with administration of justice. The aforesaid statements therefore apart from being a direct and serious act of contempt of Court, which also resulted in interference in administration of justice.
It is further submitted that, the respondent no.1 has by making the ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 9 aforesaid statements which are derogatory of the judiciary and which are also in the nature of interference with the administration of justice has committed an act of criminal contempt cognizance of which ought to be taken by this Court and respondent no.1 be hauled for contempt of Court under the provisions of section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act and duly punished for the same.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the various newspaper cuttings and the statements of the contemnor and submits that, respondent No.1 deserves to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. He invited our attention to the averments in the affidavit in reply and submits that, there is no slightest doubt that, the respondent No.1 by his inflammatory statements and derogatory remarks lowered down the image of the judiciary, and therefore, he deserves to be punished. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the prayer of respondent No.1 to allow him to withdraw the affidavit in reply, which was filed on 6th August, 2003 on the ground that, the said affidavit in reply was drafted in English and he did not understand what is in the said affidavit, cannot be accepted as averments in the said affidavit were explained to him by his advocate.
::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 :::Cri.CP2.14 10 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed into service exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta V/s Union of India and others reported in (2003) 5 S.C.C. 376 and in particular para nos. 22 and 23 thereof. The learned counsel relying upon the said judgment submits that, the apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilt of the contemnor. The apology must be sought at the earliest opportunity. He further invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and another V/s Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and others reported in (2008) 14 S.C.C. 561 and submits that, as rightly held by the Supreme Court in the facts of that case that, acceptance of such an apology would be allowing contemnors to go away with impunity and in the facts of that case, two weeks' simple imprisonment was awarded under the Contempt of Courts Act.
He further pressed into service the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of M.Y. Shareef V/s Judges of the Nagpur High Court reported in AIR 1955 SC 19 and in particular para 11 thereof. He further invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L.D. Jaikwal V/s State of U.P. reported in (1984) 3 S.C.C. 405 and in particular para 1 and 7 thereof and also in the case of C. Elumalai and others V/s A.G.L. Irudayaraj and another reported in (2009) 4 S.C.C. 213 and in particular para 5 thereof and ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 11 submits that, the apology if it is tendered at the earliest can only be accepted. The apology tendered by the contemnor should be accepted as exception and not as a rule. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also invited our attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Radha Mohan Lal V/s Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) reported in 2003(3) SCC 427 and submits that, the application making averments regarding loss of faith in a particular Judge, in the facts of that case was held as contempt, and therefore, the petitioner therein was punished by the Court. He further pressed into service the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Sail V/s M.P. High Court Bar Association and others reported in (2005)6 S.C.C. 109 and in particular paras 20, 40 and 44 of the said judgment and submits that, in the facts of that case, the Supreme Court observed that, criticism likely to interfere with due administration of justice or undermine confidence that public reposes in courts of law as courts of justice, ceases to be fair and reasonable criticism and amounts to criminal contempt of court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Sharma and others V/s High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in (2011) 6 S.C.C. 86 and in particular paras 21 and 22 thereof. He further invited our attention to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 12 M/s Lachhmandas Biharilal V/s Bhagwan Dass etc., reported in ILR (1977) I Delhi and submits that, withdrawal of affidavit is not permissible as prayed by the contemnor.
Therefore, relying upon the pleadings/grounds taken in the Petition, annexures thereto, rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner and also all other documents placed on record by the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, contemnor deserves to be punished for the contempt by rejecting his prayer to accept apology tendered by him.
6. At the outset, the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that, the respondent no.1 may be permitted to withdraw the affidavit which was filed by him on 6th August, 2003.
He further invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 in the month of May, 2006 which is at pages 485 to 492 of the compilation of the contempt proceedings and drawn our attention to paras 1 and 2 of the said affidavit and submits that, the respondent no.1 has expressed his intention to tender unconditional apology by way of filing the said affidavit as it is apparent from the contents of the para 1 of the said affidavit. It is submitted that, in para 2 of the affidavit, it is stated that, the respondent no.1 had no knowledge of ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 13 English. The learned Senior counsel invited our attention to para 6 of the said affidavit in reply and submitted that, there is categorical statement by respondent No.1 that, he would be the last person to bring judiciary in disrepute in any manner whatsoever and in fact, the apology is tendered by the contemnor. It is submitted that, the respondent has made statement that, in the light of averments in the affidavit reply he has prayed for withdrawal of the said affidavit and to that effect the prayer is made to permit him to withdraw the same.
7. The learned Senior counsel further invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 on 28 th July, 2011. He submits that, by way of filing the said affidavit, the contemnor has tendered unconditional, honest and sincere apology to this Hon'ble Court and the said apology may be accepted. It is submitted that, respondent No.1 has also regretted his conduct and further prayed to allow him to withdraw the affidavit filed on 6 th August, 2003. The learned Senior counsel further submits that, the contents of the affidavit dated 28th July, 2011 were explained to the respondent no.1 and after the said affidavit was sworn in by the respondent no.1, same is filed before this Court. The learned senior counsel submits that, taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 in the month of May, 2006 and also affidavit filed on 28 th July, 2011, ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 14 this court may accept the unconditional apology and drop the contempt proceedings.
The learned senior counsel pressed into service the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of M.Y. Shareef and another V/s Hon'ble Judges of the Nagpur High Court and others reported in AIR 1955 S.C. 19 and submits that, the Supreme Court accepted the unqualified apology given by the contemnor therein. He further invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dinabandhu Sahu V/s State of Orissa reported in 1972 Cri.L.J. 39 and submits that, the Supreme Court in the facts of that case, held that, an apology tendered by the appellant therein deserves acceptance. He invited our attention to para 2 of the said judgment.
The learned senior counsel further pressed into service the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Mahapatra V/s State of Orissa reported in AIR 1983 SC 508 and submits that, considering the fact of that case and considering the nature of accusations and delay of 8 years, the Supreme Court in the facts of that case thought it fit to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant and set aside the sentence imposed upon the appellant. The learned senior counsel further drawn our attention to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case Bhalchandra ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 15 Gangadhar Ghate V/s Pralhad Saduji Raghute and others reported in 1977 Cri.L.J. 1490(1) and in particular paras 4 and 7 thereof. The learned senior counsel further invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Mohan Lal V/s Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) reported in AIR 2003 S.C. 1467 and in particular paras 6 and 7 thereof. He submits that, the Supreme Court in the facts of that case accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant and set aside the punishment imposed on contemnor. The learned senior counsel further invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police Chennai V/s Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and another reported in (2011) 5 S.C.C. 496 and in particular paras 12, 15 and 46 thereof and submits that, in that case also the Supreme Court accepted the apology by setting aside the simple imprisonment of 7 days ordered by the High Court.
Therefore, relying upon the affidavits filed by the respondent no.1 in the month of May, 2006, 29.06.2011 and 28th July, 2011, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 submits that, the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent no.1 may be accepted and the contempt proceedings may be dropped.
::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 :::Cri.CP2.14 16
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. With their able assistance, we have perused the documents/ material placed on record. It appears that respondent no.1 on 06-08-2003 filed detail affidavit. However, by filing another affidavit in the month of May 2006, the respondent no.1 had tendered unconditional apology and also sought permission to withdraw the affidavit which was filed on 06-08-2013. Para 1 of the said affidavit reads thus :-
" I say that I am filing the present affidavit with a view to place on record my unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court and would like to point out that I have no intention whatsoever to commit any contempt by mentioning any derogatory remarks since I as a social worker always hold all courts in high esteem and in so far as the High Court of Judicature at Bombay is concerned, I have highest regards and that at no point of time I can ever think of showing any disrespect to this Hon'ble Court in any manner whatsoever"
In para 2 of the said affidavit, it is stated that, after receiving notice in contempt proceeding, the respondent no.1 was supposed to file a reply to the allegations and / or averments, in ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 17 the Contempt Petition. He does not understand or read and write English. It is further stated in the said paragraph that, "I always look at the temple of justice, namely various courts including the High Court, and I just cannot think of any disrespect and/or disregard to judicial system in this country." There are other statements in paras 2, 3 & 6 also in respect of work done by the respondent no.1 for society. In para No. 6 it is stated thus :-
"
I say that it is true that the conferment of these awards on me or any other person would not give me a licence to malign judiciary in any manner whatsoever, but my only endeavour is to point out that having undertaken the work of eradicating corruption. I would be the last person to bring judiciary in disrepute in any manner whatsoever. I again humbly apologize to this Hon'ble Court without any reservation whatsoever. I say that the said affidavit, which was signed by me and was filed on my behalf, was prepared in English and I admit that I should have been very careful. However, I having relied upon the person who represented to me that it contains no other thing but facts and that they had the proof. I say that under the aforesaid circumstances that the said affidavit was filed which, I withdraw and pray to this Hon'ble Court to allow me to file a detailed affidavit to bring correct facts on record."
::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 :::Cri.CP2.14 18
9. The respondent no.1 did file the affidavit on 06-08-2003, in said affidavit also in para 30 it is stated thus :-
"I further say and submit that I have always held the judiciary in high esteem and as a only hope to this country under the present situation. I cannot imagine of talking of derogatory or otherwise of the judiciary. However, by any stretch, this Hon'ble Court feels that even my conduct has been anywhere around or nearing to commission of contempt, I hereby tender my apology to this Hon'ble Court for I treat this Hon'ble Court as a temple of justice."
It is true that by way of filing another affidavit in the month of May, 2006, the respondent No.1 has prayed for allowing him to withdraw the affidavit dated 06-08-2003. Therefore, it appears at the earliest opportunity also, the respondent no.1 tendered unconditional apology. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently opposed the prayer of the respondent No.1 to allow him to withdraw the affidavit filed on 06-08-2003. In support of his contention that, such prayer can not be considered, he did place reliance on reported judgment of the Delhi High Court, in the case of M/s. Lachhmandas Biharilal Vs. Bhagwan Dass etc. (supra).
::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 :::Cri.CP2.14 19 However, in our considered opinion, in the facts of that case, the evidence was already produced on the file and the Court observed that, it is not open to any party to withdraw the same without leave of the Court granted on adequate grounds. In the present case, as stated by the respondent no.1 in para 2 of the affidavit which was filed in the month of May 2006 that, he cannot understand, read and write English, and on that backdrop he sought permission to withdraw the affidavit dated 06-08-2003.
In our opinion, in the facts of the present case, the affidavit dated 06-08-2003 can be allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent no.1. Accordingly, we grant the prayer of the respondent no.1 for withdrawal of the said affidavit. As a result there is no question of considering averment in the said affidavit.
10. In the affidavit in reply dated 28-06-2011 filed by the respondent no.1 in paras 2 & 6, it is stated thus :-
"At the outset I tender my unconditional honest and sincere apology to this Hon'ble Court, I say that, same may kindly be accepted. I have no intention whatsoever to commit any act by which will amount to the contempt of Court. I say that, I have the highest regard for judiciary and the orders passed ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 20 by this Hon'ble High Court as well as any Court and it's officers. I say that, therefore, my unconditional honest and sincere apology may kindly be accepted and the charges against me may kindly be discharged."
" I again tender my unconditional honest and sincere apology to this Hon'ble High Court. I have the high respect and regard to the Judicial system in this Country and the orders passed by the Judiciary.
I say that, therefore, my honest and sincere apology may kindly be accepted."
11. The respondent no.1 did file further affidavit on 28-07-2011, which reads as under :-
" I tender my unconditional, honest and sincere apology to this Hon'ble Court and the said apology may kindly be accepted. I say that, I regret my conduct and the statements being made by me about which the contempt proceedings are instituted and I have also sought permission to withdraw my earlier affidavit. I say that, I have the highest regard for the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court as well as judiciary. I say that, therefore, my unconditional, honest and sincere apology may kindly be accepted and the Contempt proceedings be dropped against me."::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 :::
Cri.CP2.14 21
12. We have considered the prayer of the respondent no.1 for accepting unconditional apology. The respondent No.1 has not only tendered unconditional apology but regretted his conduct and the statements being made by him about which contempt proceedings are instituted, and also he has further sought permission to withdraw his earlier affidavit. He has tendered unconditional, honest and sincere apology.
13. As it has come on record that the draft charges were framed on 30-06-2006, the second affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 was in the month of May 2006. As already observed, even in the affidavit dated 06.08.2003 which has allowed to be withdrawn, respondent No.1 had shown his intention to tender the unconditional apology. Therefore, it is difficult to fathom that, the respondent No.1 had no intention to tender unconditional apology at the earliest opportunity. In the present contempt proceedings, after framing the draft charge, the proceedings have not been proceeded further on merits. The reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the case of M.C. Mehata Vs. Union of India & others (supra), in support of his contention that, belated unconditional apology of the respondent may not be accepted is concerned, the contemner therein, in his ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 22 own admission, has kept running the plant which was held to be hazardous and noxious industry in total disregard and consistent defiance of the orders passed by the Supreme Court with impunity. In the facts of the present case, as already observed, the respondent No.1 has shown his intention to tender unconditional apology even before framing of the draft charges. There cannot be two opinion about the observations of the Supreme Court, in the case of L.D. Jaikwal Vs. State of U.P. (supra) that, apology tendered by contemnor should be accepted as an exception and not as a rule. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the different facts situation inasmuch as, the High Court of Allahabad initiated contempt proceedings, and found the appellant guilty of having committed criminal contempt under section 2(c) (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, after affording him full opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the facts of the case in hand are altogether different. In the case of C. Yeumalai and others V. A.G.L. Irudayaraj and another (supra), there was breach of the Supreme Court order directing the parties not to create third-
party rights till disposal of the suit. Respondents therein created third-party rights, and then tendered unconditional apology, which was not accepted by the Supreme Court. We have also considered the other judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 23 petitioner, however, the fact situation in the present proceedings is different inasmuch as, before framing of draft charges, the respondent no.1 in clear words in the affidavit in reply filed in the month of May 2006 stated thus :-
" I say that I am filing the present affidavit with a view to place on record my unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court and would like to point out that I have no intention whatsoever to commit any contempt by mentioning any derogatory remarks since I as a social worker always hold all courts in high esteem and in so far as the High Court of Judicature at Bombay is concerned, I have highest regards and that at no point of time I can ever think of showing any disrespect to this Hon'ble Court in any manner whatsoever".
We have examined the present case in the light of judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of M.Y. Shareef Vs Judges of the Nagpur High Court (Supra).
The Supreme Court in the facts of that case held that, once however the High Court found that they were guilty of contempt, they would have been well advised to tender an unqualified apology to that court forthwith. But perhaps they were still under the delusion that they were right and the court was in error, and that by coming to this Court they might be able to have the question of principle settled as they contended. As soon as we ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 24 indicated to the learned counsel that they were in error, they, and their counsel immediately tendered an unqualified apology which as already indicated was repeated again in absolute terms at the second hearing. The Supreme Court further observed that the unqualified apology was sufficient to purge the contempt committed by the two appellants therein. It has also to be kept in view that condemnation for contempt by a High Court of senior members of the Bar is itself a heavy punishment to them, as it affects them in their professional career and is a great blot on them. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent that the sentence of fine passed on both the appellants was set aside, and the unqualified apology given by them to the Supreme Court and the High Court was accepted.
In the case of Dinabhandhu Sahu Vs. State of Orissa (supra), the Supreme Court held that, where the Court is convinced about the sincerity of the apology asked by the contemnors through their counsel at the time of hearing, the conviction merely on the ground that apology was not tendered at earlier stage and was not in writing, is not proper. It is held that, an apology tendered sincerely and accompanied with request to forgive deserves acceptance.
::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 25 The Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra
Mahapatra V/s. State of Orissa (supra), has accepted the unqualified apology tendered by the appellants and set aside the sentence imposed on them. The Supreme Court observed that, having regard to the nature of the accusation and the delay of eight years, this is a fit case in which the Court should accept unqualified apology tendered by the appellant therein.
. The Supreme Court in the case of Radha Mohanlal Vs. Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) (supra), has also accepted the apology tendered therein and set aside the punishment imposed upon the contemnor.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai Vs. Parthi Ilamvazhuthi and others (supra) held as under :-
" Contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, burden and standard of proof is the same as required in criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged contemnor is ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 26 entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not permit imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings on mere probabilities, equally, the court cannot punish the alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and surmises."
" Jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for contempt as also the jurisdiction to punish for contempt are discretionary with the Court.
Contempt
ig generally and criminal
certainly is a matter between the court and the contempt alleged contemnor. No one can compel or demand as of right initiation of proceedings for contempt. The person filing an application or petition before the court does not become a complainant or petitioner in the proceedings. He is just an informer or relator. His duty ends with the facts being brought to the notice of the court. It is thereafter for the Court to act on such information or not."
. In the said case the appellant therein was punished by the High Court, however, the Supreme Court by accepting the apology for the reasons discussed in para No. 45, set aside the order of the High Court sentencing appellant therein.
::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 :::Cri.CP2.14 27
15. In the contempt proceedings the role of the petitioner is in the form of informant inasmuch as, once the subject matter of the proceedings brought to the notice of the Court, the petitioner's role is over, unless the petitioner is called upon to assist the Court.
In the case of Supreme Court Bar Association V/s. Union of India & Another; reported in (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 409, in para No. 41 held thus :-
"
When this Court is seized of a matter of contempt of court by an Advocate, there is no "case Cause or matter" before the Supreme Court regarding his "professional misconduct" even though, in a given case, the contempt committed by an advocate may also amount to an abuse of the privilege granted to an advocate by virtue of the licence to practise law but no issue relating to his suspension from practice is the subject-matter of the case. The powers of this Court, under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution, being supplementary powers have "to be use in exercise of its jurisdiction: in the case under consideration by this Court. Moreover, a case of contempt of Court is not stricto sensu a cause or a matter between the parties inter se. It is a matter between the Court and the contemner. It is not, strictly speaking, tried as an adversarial litigation. The party, which brings the contumacious conduct of the contemner to the notice ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 ::: Cri.CP2.14 28 of the Court, whether a private person or the subordinate court, is only an informant and does not have the status of a litigant in the contempt of court case." (Emphasis supplied)
16. In the light of discussion here-in-above, in the facts of the present case, even before framing of the draft charges, the respondent No.1 has tendered unconditional apology as it is evident from the perusal of para No. 1 of affidavit which was filed in the month of May 2006 and also in the affidavit in reply dated 28-06-2011 in para No. 2 & 6. The respondent no.1 has tendered unqualified apology and regretted for his conduct. Even in the affidavit in reply dated 28-07-2011, the respondent No.1 has tendered unconditional, honest and sincere apology to this Court.
Hence, by accepting unconditional and unqualified apology, the contempt proceeding deserves to be dropped. The contempt proceeding stands dropped accordingly. The notice stands discharged. The draft charge framed against respondent No. 1 stands dropped. Rule stands discharged. The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
( P.R. BORA, J. ) ( S.S. SHINDE, J. )
sga/-
::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2014 23:49:50 :::