Karnataka High Court
High Court Of Karnataka vs Sri Chandrashekar N Sirur on 27 November, 2015
Bench: Anand Byrareddy, S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL C.C.C. No.1 OF 2014
(SUO-MOTU)
BETWEEN:
High Court of Karnataka,
Represented by the Registrar General,
Bangalore.
... COMPLAINANT
(By Shri V.M. Banakar, Additional Government Advocate)
AND:
Sri. Chandrashekar N Sirur,
Advocate,
Resident of L.I.G.No.164,
Mahantesh Nagar,
2
Malmaruthi Extension,
Belgaum 590 016.
... ACCUSED
(By Shri M.B.Gundawade, Advocate)
This Suo-Motu Criminal Contempt Case is initiated under
Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article
215 of the Constitution of India, praying to initiate Criminal
Contempt against the accused and punish him in accordance with
law.
This Criminal C.C.C. having been heard and reserved
on 08.10.2015 at Dharwad Bench, Dharwad and coming on for
pronouncement of Orders at the Principal Bench, Bengaluru, this
day, Anand Byrareddy J., delivered the following:-
ORDER
The Complaint is filed on behalf of the High Court of Karnataka, in the following circumstances:
The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum by his letter dated 10.10.2013 is said to have forwarded a complaint, to the Registrar, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, under Section 15(1) and (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the 3 accused, Chandrashekar Neelakantappa Sirur, filed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge Belgaum.
The complaint was to the effect that the accused, who was the judgment debtor no.1 in a case in Execution Petition No.157/2009 on the file of the court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum, had committed willful acts of criminal contempt.
The accused was the defendant in a suit for declaration of title and possession. The suit having been decreed and affirmed in appeal by this court, the matter is said to have attained finality before the Apex Court on the dismissal of a petition seeking special leave to appeal. The decree holder having sought to take out execution of the decree, the accused had contested the execution proceedings and in an interlocutory application running into 113 pages, the accused is said to have made several statements using contumacious language and casting aspersions on the trial court, this court as well as the apex court. The said statements were specifically reiterated in the complaint.4
Incidentally, the accused was himself a practising Advocate of the Belgaum Bar. It is also stated that the accused had, on two previous occasions, faced criminal contempt of court charges in respect of his conduct while prosecuting two civil suits, instituted on his own behalf. In the said cases in CCC (Cri) 26/1997 and CCC (Crl) 20/1998, instituted before this court, on the accused having tendered an unconditional apology, the petitioner had dropped the said proceedings, with a warning to the accused not to repeat such behaviour.
It transpires that the above complaint having been placed before the Honourable Chief Justice, on the administrative side, for orders - is said to have directed initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused and hence the complaint.
2. The accused having entered appearance, had filed statement of objections and also an affidavit in the nature of an apology. This court, however, held that the apology could be 5 considered only if the accused was purged of his alleged contumacious act.
The counsel for the accused was heard before framing of charges and the following charges were framed:
"1. That you being Judgment Debtor No.1 (Advocate by profession) in Execution Petition No.157/2009 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum, you have filed an application (I.A) dated 12.03.2013 under Section 47 r/w Section 151 under Order XXI Rule 101 C.P.C., and under Section 340 of Cr.PC accompanied by an affidavit. In the said application and affidavit, you have repeatedly uttered certain derogatory remarks using contumacious language, on the judgment of the trial Court, a Division Bench of this Court in RFA No.302/2001 dated 16.4.2009 and Apex Court in SLP 18541/2009 in the following manner:-
a) ".........The plaintiff had managed to get the RFA 302/2001 in the matter between the landlord and tenant, registered and admitted as appeal u/s. 96 CPC, on 07.04.2001, when the property and the tenant were governed by the provisions of Act." (page 14 reasoning No 11)
b) "... The High Court has passed the decree in the matter between landlord and tenant, treating the tenant established in occupation of tenanted premises, as a licensee in view of denial of J.Dr.No.1, of the title of plaintiff and denying the tenancy, in exercise of the ordinary civil jurisdiction u/s 96 6 CPC, in abuse of process of law... " (page 16/Reasoning No.16)
c) ".... On the face of record, the High Court has exercised the jurisdiction which was barred under law of local rent laws... but by playing fraud the court was mislead... but unfortunately the appellate court had not gone through that part of the evidence which was falsifying the claim of license to the plaintiff..." (Page 21 / Reasoning No.30).
d) ".. The appellate court has given reasonings at Paras 24, 25 and 26 of the judgment ... to infer the irrationality or rationality of judicial minds of the Division Bench of High Court contrary to the state of judicial minds in the subordinate trial courts adhering to the evidence adduced before them, perhaps with the prejudice that Defendant No.1 was an advocate... " (Page 27/Reasoning No.42)
e) "....... The appellate court is in abuse of process of law and power of the High Court, in passing a decree of O.S.No.280/84 which was dismissed for want of inherent jurisdiction as not maintainable in its original jurisdiction by the II Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum." (Page 27/Reasoning No.44)
f) "..... The judgment of the High Court ... has resulted into miscarriage of justice ... The conclusion of that appellate court only on the assumption of claim of license in haste to set 7 aside the finding of the trial Court...." (Page 28/III miscellaneous reasons on excitability)
g) ".... The appellate court (High Court) has not at all given justifiable reasons on the findings on Issue No.5, issue No.6, and Additional issue No.4, but on the other hand accepted the finding of the trial Court to Issue No.1, and hence on meaningful reading of the reasons at Paras - 23 to 29 of the appellate court judgment, any prudent man can daringly opine that the judgment of the appellate court is cryptic in a hurry and haste reasoned to an erroneous judgment resulting into miscarriage of justice.... " (Page 77/Point No.1)
h) ".... The Decree Holder could not have been permitted to assume inconsistent positions in the trial court, to play fast and loose, to blow hot and cold, the detriment of JD No.1 and that court has been compelled to pass a decree.." (Page 85/Particular Instance No.8)
i) ".... The Decree holder, had managed to get the suit registered, to get the suit admitted and to get the decree passed on the subject matter which was not prayed in the plaint .... "(Page 86/Particular instance No.11)
j) The Decree obtained in abuse of process of the court "...
The Division Bench has wrongly maintained the grievance of the plaintiff...." (Page 94/Point No.1) 8
k) The Decree obtained in abuse of process of the court".... The appellate court ought to have entertained such fraudulent approach being made in abuse of process of the court by the plaintiff and Defendant No.2. The principal of finality of litigation can not be pressed to the extent of such absurdity that RFA No.302/2001 becomes an engine of fraud in the hand of dishonest litigants the plaintiff and colluding Defendant No.2...." (Page 93/XI)
l) "....... The Decree Holder and J.D.No.2 thus have treated the courts as an idle docile and mindless spectator powerless chooses to bring frivolous litigations for their dishonest claim before the court for possession...." (Page 99/Particular instance No.4)
m) ".... the Decree Holder and J.Dr.No.2 have corruptly chosen to go to first appellate court for their grievances ...." (Page 103/Particular instance No.16)
n) In the said I.A. dated 12.03.2013, even you have commented on the dismissal of your SLP No.18451/2009 by the Hon'ble Apex Court. At Pages 5, 106, 110 and 112 you would daringly state that without giving reasons SLP is dismissed. You have the audacity to contend that his petition was dismissed without assigning any reasons by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9
2. You, with malicious intention to protract the said execution petition, and defeat the rights of the Decree holder in Ex.P.157/2009, set up your brother to file O.S.No.340/2003, and also set up third parties to file several suits in O.S.No.693/2009, O.S.701/2009 and O.S.702/2009, and you have also been filing application after applications." The accused pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried. The presiding officer of the court, before which the accused is said to have filed the application, containing the statements which gave rise to the complaint, was examined before the court. The Registrar General of the High Court was examined. Both the witnesses were subjected to cross examination.
Arguments on behalf of the complainant and the accused, were heard at length.
3. It is noticed that the accused had raised a preliminary objection as to the contempt proceedings being barred by limitation. The same was not addressed by this court at that point of time. In view of the emphasis now laid on the issue by the learned counsel for the accused, we are required to address the 10 same - though there can be no doubt from a plain reading of the accusations against the accused and the contents of application filed before the court below containing the contumacious pleadings, which are candidly admitted by the accused, except to plead a temporary loss of control over his senses - as sought to be glibly claimed in a half hearted apology made before this court in an affidavit dated 27.3.2014, that the accused has made statements which are raw and willful contempt of the hierarchy of courts and the judges - attacked.
Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as follows:-
"20. Limitation for actions for contempt.--No court shall initiate any proceedings of 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."
In applying the above provision to the case on hand, we are required to take note of the following sequence of events. 11
The offending application was filed by the accused, before the court below as on 12.3.2013.
The presiding officer of the court below has made a complaint of the contents of the application as being in contempt of court(s), as on 6.9.2013.
The present case was instituted before this court as on 31.1.2014.
At this stage, it is significant to record the contents of the Order sheet to take stock of the progress of the case and the effect of Orders passed from time to time.
"Dr.KBJ & KNKJ:
03.02.2014 Since the matter pertains to Dharwad Bench, the Registry is directed to transmit the records.
xxxx NKJ & CRKSJ:
12.02.2014 Notice.
xxxx ASBJ & BSGJ:
05.03.2014 12 Learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file objections.
List after two weeks.
xxxx ASBJ & BSGJ:
01.04.2014:
ORDER Though along with the objection statement an affidavit is filed by the accused in the nature of apology, we are of the view that the consideration of apology would arise only if the contumacious act is also purged by obeying the judgment in the Regular First Appeal regarding which untenable allegations are made.
In that view, if the accused undertakes to vacate from the premises regarding which the Division Bench of this Court had given him three months time to vacate while passing the judgment dated 16.4.2009, the affidavit of apology would arise for consideration.
Learned counsel for the accused seeks time to secure instructions in this regard.
List after ten days.
xxxx ASBJ & BSGJ:
22.4.2014 List after two weeks at the request of the learned counsel for the respondent.
xxxx DR. KBJ & PDWJ:
10.06.2014 13 Learned counsel for the accused prays time on the ground that on 22.04.2014, the matter was adjourned after two weeks and a specific date was not given and therefore, the accused is not present.
In view of the above, personal appearance of the accused is exempted for the day.
Call on 23.06.2014.
xxxx HBJ & PDWJ:
23.06.2014 The accused is present.
At the request of the learned counsel for the accused, call this matter on 04.07.2014.
xxxx Dr. KBJ & PDWJ:
4.7.2014 Accused is present.
Call on 9.7.2014.
xxxx Dr. KBJ & PDWJ:
09.07.2014 Accused is present.
Call on 28.07.2014 xxxx Dr. KBJ & PDWJ:
14
28.07.2014 Accused is present.
Call on 25.08.2014.
xxxx RMRJ & BMJ:
25.08.2014 ORDER Objection of the accused and the affidavit of apology to be considered at a later date.
The suo-motu proceeding initiated under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts, Act, 1971 on the basis of the letter of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum, is extracted in extenso in the petition. The averments as extracted in the letter of the Senior Civil Judge, makes reference to several pages of the I.A. dated 12.03.2013 under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in Ex. Petition No.157/2009 apparently is of concern since the contemnor was an Ex-Principal of a Law College, a practicing advocate for 40 years at Belgaum Bar and a District Public Prosecutor for 5 years in Belgaum. Without having to extract the nature of insinuations directed against the Division Bench of this Court for having allowed R.F.A. No.302/2001 and sequentially allowing O.S.No.280/1984 and drawing a decree, some of the insinuations, prima facie, are also directed against the decree-holder. The contemnor has filed statement of objections inter alia denying the allegations and has also filed an objection on the point of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, while advancing a plea that the contempt petition is barred by limitation. The contemnor has filed an affidavit dated 26th March 2014 stating that on 18.08.2012 an unconditional apology was tendered before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum and further tenders an unqualified and unconditional apology before this Court, which may be accepted and "the proceedings in the event of its maintainability, be dropped in the interest of justice and equity".
15
The accused is present as identified by his learned counsel and submits that charges be framed.
In order to extend an opportunity of hearing to the accused to have his say, we think it appropriate to re-list this petition on 10th of September 2014 to hear the accused before framing charges."
xxxx
4. Assuming that the accused is deemed to have committed the act of contempt on the date that the offending application was filed before the court below for its consideration as on 12.3.2013, it would appear that the proceedings against the accused ought to have been initiated within the period of limitation, namely, on or before 11.3.2014.
There was uncertainty in the decisions of various courts of the land as to the precise point of time as to when a proceeding could be said to be initiated within the meaning of Section 20, above. That is now settled by the Apex court in the case of Omprakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal, JT 2000 (2) SC 293. After an exhaustive analysis of the law and the object and purpose of the contempt jurisdiction, it was observed by the Apex Court thus : 16
"Filing of an application or petition for initiating proceedings for contempt or a mere receipt of such reference by the Court does not amount to initiation of the proceedings by Court. On receiving any such document it is usual with the Courts to commence some proceedings by employing an expression such as 'admit', 'rule', 'issue notice' or 'issue notice to show cause why proceedings for contempt be not initiated'. In all such cases the notice is issued either in routine or because the Court has not yet felt satisfied that a case for initiating any proceedings for contempt has been made out and therefore the Court calls upon the opposite party to admit or deny the allegations made or to collect more facts so as to satisfy itself if a case for initiating the proceedings for contempt was made out. Such a notice is certainly anterior to initiation. The tenor of the notice is itself suggestive of the fact that inspite of having applied its mind to the allegations and the material placed before it the Court was not satisfied of the need for initiating proceedings for contempt; it was still desirous of ascertaining facts of collecting further material whereon to formulate such opinion. It is only when the Court has formed an opinion that a prima facie case for initiating proceedings for contempt is made out and that the respondents or the alleged contemnors should be called upon to show cause why they should not be punished then the Court can be said to have initiated proceedings for contempt. It is the 17 result of the conscious application of the mind of the Court to the facts and the material before it. Such initiation of proceedings for contempt based on application of mind by the Court to the facts of the case and the material before it must take place within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed failing which the jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings for contempt is lost."
It may now be noticed that it is for the first time, as per Order dated 25.8.2014, that this court has indicated that it has applied its mind to the contents of the complaint and the conduct of the accused, in directing that the accused be given an opportunity to be heard before framing of charges. This was clearly after the period of limitation had expired.
Consequently, we are left with no alternative, but to dismiss these proceedings as barred by limitation, though we are of the firm view that the accused is an incorrigible man who ought to 18 have been punished with the maximum punishment that could be imposed under the Act.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE nv*