Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 68 (0.38 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 2 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 311 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Daroga Singh & Ors vs B.K. Pandey on 13 April, 2004
138. On another aspect of the procedure to be followed, reference was
made to Daroga Singh v. B.K. Pandey, (2004) 5 SCC 26 for the proposition
that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed and if the
alleged contemnor desires to cross examine a person who has filed
(anything) against him, he may be permitted to do so. Reference was also
made to M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, 1971 (2)
SCC 617 and Union of India v. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882 to contend that
even if the principles laid down in the Evidence Act do not apply to
contempt proceedings, the principles of natural justice must be followed
such that the decision is not liable to be impeached on the ground that the
procedure followed was not in accordance with that which obtains in a Court
of law. Moreover, this does not imply that what is not evidence can still be
relied upon. "... no materials can be relied upon to establish a contested fact
which are not spoken to by persons who are competent to speak about them
and are subjected to cross-examination by the party against whom they are
sought to be used."
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Jagjit Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 11 December, 2006
139. It was emphasized by Mr. Anand that if denials by an alleged
contemnor are vague or general, then they should not be accepted; but in the
present case, he has specifically denied the allegations made against him in
considerable detail and so if an opportunity is not given to him to cross-
examine the reporter, he would not be getting a fair deal and the principles
of natural justice would be violated. Reliance in this regard was placed on
Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006) 11 SCC 1.
Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning Ab And ... vs State Through Cbi on 4 February, 2004
63. To highlight his travails and tribulations caused by the expose, Mr.
Anand referred to Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB v. State, 2004 (72)
DRJ 693. In this case, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a
charge sheet after thirteen years of investigation, which included three years
of "investigative journalism" by the media. In a petition against the framing
of charges, it was conceded by learned counsel appearing for the CBI that
there was no evidence showing the receipt of bribe money, but the CBI was
on the trail for gathering such evidence. In this context, the Court observed:
Subhash Chand vs S.M. Aggarwal And Anr. on 2 December, 1983
65. Mr. Anand cited another decision, which we find to be inapposite.
This was Subhash Chander v. S.M. Aggarwal, 25 (1984) DLT 52. This case
arose as a result of an interview given by a judge who tried a case in which
he convicted the accused to death. The judge knew that the death sentence
was awaiting confirmation in the High Court, but still he gave interviews to
the press and even an interview on national television supporting the
decision that he had given. The Court noted:
E.T. Sen (Retd.) vs Edatata Narayanan And Ors. on 12 December, 1968
68. In Brig. E.T. Sen v. Edatata Narayanan, 5 (1969) DLT 348 the
allegation was that pending the trial of a complaint for libel, the respondents
carried out a persistent one-sided press campaign against the cause of the
petitioner with a view to poisoning the mind of the general public and
WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 29 of 112
thereby hampering the course of justice. Among the allegations made by the
petitioner was that the report of the Court proceedings was inaccurate and
misleading and there was a display of headlines of a scaring and sensational
character. In this context, it was held that,
"Neither the press reporter nor the publisher of a newspaper can in my
view, claim an indefeasible right to put his own gloss on the
statements in Court by selecting stray passages out of context which
may have a tendency to convey to the reader to the prejudice of a
party to the proceedings, a sense different from what would appear
when the statement is read in its own context. To reproduce stray
misleading passages in bold headlines in order to attract the attention
of casual readers may serve as an aggravating factor. Similarly, while
reproducing the Court proceedings, no words may be added, omitted
or substituted if their effect is to be more prejudicial to a party litigant
than the actual proceedings. Any deviation in the report from the
correct proceedings actually recorded must, if it offends the law of
contempt of Court, render the alleged contemnor liable to be
proceeded against."