Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)
Sukh Raj vs Hemraj And Ors. on 17 January, 1966 cites

State vs Radhagobinda Das And Ors. on 9 February, 1953

13. We should further like to observe in this connection that the proper course to be followed in order to determine whether a particular matter amounts to a contempt of court would be to read it as it stands and to attach to the words used their natural meaning without the assistance of a laborious commentary. The mere disclaimer on the part of the publisher or the author that he had no intention to show disrespect to the court would, not, therefore, be a sufficient defence when the purpose and meaning of the writing is obviously of a contrary import and is contemptuous. If, however, the language used is fairly capable of an innocent interpretation, the court will not be astute to read a sinister import into it. But, if on the other hand, the language is fairly clear, liability to punishment cannot be allowed to be avoided by the use of a cloak or an artifice. Likewise the intention or the motive of the coptemner is immaterial if the publication is calculated to impede the fair trial of a case or bring the administration of justice into contempt. See In re, Tarit Kanti. AIR 1918 Cal 988 (SB) (supra) and State v. Radhagobinda, AIR 1954 Orissa 1. We should, however, guard ourselves from being understood to mean that Judges and courts are above all criticism. Indeed, if reasonable argument or criticism is offered against a judicial act as contrary to law, no court should or would treat that as contempt.
Orissa High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - B Jagannadhadas - Full Document

M. Y. Shareef And Another vs The Honble Judges Of The High Courtof ... on 15 October, 1954

20. Thus it seems to us that an unconditional or unreserved apology in a case of a minor or technical contempt may be accepted to have the effect of purging the same. But the same could not be legitimately predicated of serious or gross contempts. Again, it must be remembered, and it seems to us to be fairly well established that an apology is not a weapon of defence forged to purge the guilt under all circumstances. Nor can it be allowed to operate as a universal panacea. It has also been held that where a contempt is committed under a mistaken notion of the contemner's rights and duties, even a qualified apology may well be considesed by a court. See M. Y. Shareef v. Judges of Nagpur High Court AIR 1955 SC 19 It has also been held, however, that broadly speaking, there cannot be both justification and an apology as the two things are incompatible. In any case, an apology to be effective must be offered at the earliest possible opportunity, as a belated apology is almost always likely to be rejected as an afterthought or as an idle formality lacking in grace and substance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 27 - M C Mahajan - Full Document
1