Court on Its Own Motion Vs. S.K. Garg - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
contempt of court act - section 13--it is not necessary that the judicial officer must be conducting the judicial proceedings when contempt committed. it was further held that in order to interpret the word 'substantially' in section 13, what is required to tooked at is the 'nature' of the contempt. contempt of court act - section 13--contemner additional commissioner of police obstructed the administration of justice when additional sessions judge was about to sit on chair--contemner used intemperate and contemptuous language in his reply to show cause notice--mere fact that additional sessions judge not conducting judicial proceedings will not entitle contemner to shout at him and give threats publicly--amounts to substantial interference with the administration of justice. affidavits filed by staff of additional sessions judge--affidavits produced by the bar association--no substantial infirmities--contemner has no right of defense under section 175)--evidence to justify allegations amounting to contempt is not permissible--contemner guilty of gross contempt of court.; the very nature of shouting and threats to mr. aggarwal the judge of that court amounts to substantial interference with the administration of justice. mr. aggarwal as per the facts which have come on record was so disturbed because of the shouting and threats that he had to rise from the court and report the matter to his seniors.; contemner cannot be permitted to justify his defense by pleading evidence. all, that is necessary is that the procedure is fair and the contemner is aware of the charge against him and that he is given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. we see no quarrel with this proposition of law as urged. but at the same time we cannot loose sight of the fact that this act contemplates a procedure of its own wherein affidavits can be taken as evidence and the same cannot be completely brushed aside. admittedly contemner cannot lead evidence but after going through his affidavit filed in reply to show cause notice we find no merits in the same, nor it can be said that what has been stated by shri s.m. aggarwal, additional sessions judge is not believable or reliable.; having come to the conclusion that contemner did not interfere with the due course of justice and thus committed a contempt of the court we hold him guilty of gross contempt of the court but taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances we sentence him to pay the fine of rs. 1000/- and failing to deposit the same, he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. - - from the tide of civil lines were allowed to pass hardly bad he crossed about 15 steps from the mouth of the bridge, when a maruti gypsy of police overtook his vehicle from the leu side at the mouth of yamuna bridge. ail reasoning failed to pacify the contemner. but before dealing with this objection, we would like to deal with the preliminary objections raised by the contemner regarding the maintainability of this petition. aggarwal addressed to the high court dated march 7, 1990 as well as in the affidavits of the staff of his court. we have perused the complaint as well as the affidavits and find no substantial infirmities leading to the root of the case. the law has been well-settled by the supreme court in the case of shri c. the perusal of these affidavits as well as the complaint of shri s. thereforee, he had seen both the incidents at yamuna bridge as well as in the court room itself. thus, in respect to such an incident giving rise to contempt proceedings, the presiding officer clearly falls in the category of the wholly truthful and reliable witness. additional sessions judge is not believable or reliable.usha mehra, j. (1) this court, on a complaint received from shri s m. aggarwal, additional, sessions judge, shahdara, delhi, initiated contempt proceedings on its own motion against the present contemner shri s p. garg, additional commissioner of police, vivek vihar, delhi. the cause which led to the present proceedings is the incident of 7th march, 1990 whereby it is alleged that the contemner obstructed the administration of justice by his conduct. (2) shri s.m. aggarwal, additional sessions judge is resident of civil lines area. delhi. in his report in , court he has stated that on 7th. march, 1990 he was going to court at shahdara in his car no. ddf-15 (hereinafter called 'the said car') there being unusual rush on that day, lots of vehicles and buses passed from the side of the monkey bridge turn going to old yamuna bridge. it was at this place that the vehicles coming. from the tide of civil lines were allowed to pass hardly bad he crossed about 15 steps from the mouth of the bridge, when a maruti gypsy of police overtook his vehicle from the leu side at the mouth of yamuna bridge. as the police vehicle wanted to make an abrupt and unauthorised entry by overtaking his car at the month of bridge, mr. aggarwal shouted at the driver of police van thereby reminding .him about his driving sense, this was nor taken lightly by the driver of the police vehicle who started blowing violent horn after crossing the bridge and thereafter blowing siren. mr. aggarwal could not give way as there was not much space, hence at the first available opportunity he stopped his vehicle. police gypsy came ahead of aggarwal's car and blocked his passage. the contemner who was in plain clothes got down accompanied by two police officials in uniform, one of whom forcibly opened mr. aggaswal's car and caught hold of his hand and tried to drag him out. contemner abused mr aggarwal and challenged as. to how dare he could shout at policeman. ail reasoning failed to pacify the contemner. finding that the contemner was not going to see reason, mr. aggarwal speeded away his car the contemner in order to apprehend mr. aggarwal issued signals on his walkie-talkie to the police officials posted at the check-post. the officer at the check-post on stopping car no ddf-15 found mr. aggarwal he recognised, thereforee, let him go. check-post police officials flashed back that the said car belonged to additional sessions judge, shahdara.' (3) mr. aggarwal reached his court about 10.20 a.m. and was about to resume the chair when the contemner entered shouting at him he again questioned mr. aggarwal as to how dare he shouted at police officer traveling in a police vehicle. the contemnor also held out threats to mr. aggarwal by these undesirable and uncalled for acts and threats of the contemner, mr. aggarwal got so perturbed that he had to leave his court room. he immediately left the court room in order to apprise about this incident to sh. mohd. shamim, additional sessions judge, in-charge, shahdara courts. (4) the contemner mr. garg in reply to the show cause notice took up preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of this petition beside giving his defense on merits according to him at no point of time in the whole incident, the judge was holding any court, and thereforee the question of contempt of court could not arise; the basis of issuing of this contempt is to protect the judge personally which the law does not permit the recourse to the courts of contempt is not permissible to settle the individual scores of the judge through the instrumentality of these proceedings. he further took up the plea that the allegations are not clear and relate to question of facts which cannot be gone into in there proceedings and even otherwise, they are barred under the provisions of section 10 of the contempt of courts act. (5) on merits be has not disputed the incident but has tried to explain away by stating that on 7th march, 1990 at 10:00 a.m. when he was on his way to his office in his maruti gypsy (hereinafter called 'the police jeep' standing at the entrance of the bridge, there were two creeping rows of cars and other vehicles side byside. the said car was ahead of one row while the police jeep was at the head of the other row on the left side at the entrance of the bridge driven by a police constable. the driver of the said car without any rhyme or reason stopped the car and shouted filthy abuses to the driver of the police jeep. some body was sitting on the rear scat of the driver in the said car. beside the driver the contemner and a constable with wireless set were sitting on the police jeep. because of the abuses buried by the driver of the said car, police jeep driver got perturbed and, thereforee, the police jeep overtook the said car is order to stop him. the said car was not having any official marking. contemner got down in order to ask the driver of the said car as to who authorised him to use filthy language. at that time the driver of the said car asked the contemner whether be knew to whom he was talking, to which he replied he was not bothered to know. he has also admitted in his reply that he felt aggrieved when the driver of the said car speeded away from the spot, he thereforee flushed wireless message to the check-post police officials to stop the said car. he also admits that the control room informed him that the said car belonged to sessions judge, shahdara, delhi. he went to the courts at shahdara. to lodge protest against the driver to the sessions judge. according to him he came to know at shahdara that the said car belonged to shri s.m. aggarwal. additional sessions judge, thereforee, he went to see him in his chamber and sought the appointment through a naib court. he in order to reach the chamber of the court, had to cross dias of the judge, where he met mr.aggarwal, who in turn told him that matter has already been reported to the high court thereforee be was not prepared to listen anything. in this regard it will not be out of place to mention that even in reply to the show cause notice, the contemner has used intemperate and contemptuous language. reference can be had to paras 3 & 4 of his reply. paras 3 & 4 are reproduced as under: para 3 : 'that with great respect to this hon'ble court and to the court held by shri s.m. aggarwal, a.s.j. delhi, it is respectfully submitted that shri s.m aggarwal, has twisted the facts and has reported incorrect case after using his legal experience and has tried to misuse the august post being held by him, shri s.m. aggarwal's own version admits arrogance on his part comprising of shouting etc' para 4(g): 'that it is incorrect that one of the uniformed constables forcibly opened the gate of the asj's car and one of the constables caught. hold of his hand and tried to drag him out. his further allegation that the police vehicle blocked his car is also incorrect. .he is also wrong when be alleges that the respondent a bawd him and shouted as to who had given him authority to shout at the occupant of police vehicle.' (b) that the- allegation that the respondent shouted at shri s.m. aggarwal, asj, in his court and threatened him to see later is utterly false. the respondent could not even think of doing that.' (i) 'that the behavior of shri s.m. aggarwal was unbecoming of a judicial officer who is supposed to maintain the highest standards of decency and restraint public behavior.' (j) 'that the version of the respondent as already submitted to this hon'ble court is true and correct. on the contrary the complaint of the asj is full of contradictions. (6) however vide affidavit filed on 5th september. 1990 he tendered apology regarding his averments made in para 3 only. (7) bawa gurcharan singh, advocate appearing for shri s. m. aggarwal contended that the contemner has no right of defense. but before dealing with this objection, we would like to deal with the preliminary objections raised by the contemner regarding the maintainability of this petition. according to contemner since shri aggarwal was not holding the court at that time, thereforee, what transpired on 7th march. 1990 cannot constitute contempt. we are not inclined to agree with this submission of the counsel for the contemner. the fact that mr. aggarwal was coming out of his chamber and about to resume his chair when the contemner shouted and held out threats in the court amounts to interference in due administration of justice. this act itself amounts to contempt. it is an admitted fact on record that after the incident near the bridge, the contemnor chased mr. aggarwal up to his court room it is also on record by way of affidavits of the court officials that contemner pushed aside the orderly of the court of shri aggarwal and went up to the dias of the judge, at that time mr. aggarwal was coming out from. the chamber towards the dias. it was at this stage the contemner shouted at the judge and threatened him. if this conduct and behavior of the contemner is not a contempt, then to our mind, no other action can be called contempt. the contemner had the guts to chase the judge up to his court and because of what happened inside the court, mr. aggarwal got so perturbed that he had to leave his judicial work for that day. this to our mind amounts to interference with due course of justice even if we ignore as to what happened near the bridge, still the action of the contemner inside the court room would amount to contempt. the shouting at the judge publicly and giving threat cannot be justified nor can be ignored. it in. not mr aggarwal who was ridiculed but a presiding officer of criminal court at shahdara and that too in the presence of his staff. the law of contempt is the protector of the seat of justice more than a person of the judge sitting in that ieat. there is need. to ensure that the courts of justice is not obstructed. equally it is important to maintain unimpaired confidence of the public in the courts of law. if the courts are brought in ridicule and disrespected publicly then the public would cease to have confidence in courts and the very foundation of society will be shaken. the guiding principles, however, is that no court can function properly unless allowed to keep us its dignity. (8) the counsel for the contemner further contended that the power of contempt should not be exercised light-heartedly. it is undeniable that the contempt proceedings are to be used sparingly and this power can only be exercised in order to protect the administration of justice and not the person of the judge. it is said in the armed forces that an army officer should be a gentleman. so should be a public officer and a judge. where a judge makes grievance of the conduct of others, when he was not actually performing his duty, he is using his status as judge. thereforee, he should so conduct himself, even outside the court, that he is seen as a gentleman. if the abuses attributed to him are correct then his conduct is highly reprehensible. (9) but the mere fact that mr. aggarwal was not conducting the judicial proceedings will not entitle the contemner to shout at him and give threats publicly. it is not necessary that the contempt should be in the face of the judge. the supreme court in the case of rama dayal markarha v. state of madhya pradesh reported in : 1978crilj917 held that such a con tempt is not of the technical one. the test applied is that there was & likelihood of interference with the due course of justice. the question whether a contempt has been committed and whether it ought to be punished tend to merge. there is no contempt if the possibility of influence is remote. the key word in section 13 of the act is 'substantially', and in deciding whether the interference with the due course of justice is substantial or not, what one is required to look at is the 'nature' of the contempt. the section is an application- of the maxim 'de minimis not curat lex'. thereforee, what we have to see that contempt is not merely technical but substantial interference with the due course of justice, whether the judge is sitting on the chair or not. (10) as has come on record and not disputed, mr. aggarwal had reached the court by about 10.20 a.m. after reaching the court he directly went to his chamber and was preparing to come out and sit on the chair when the contemner entered the court and reached up to his dias. mr. aggarwal by then was coming out from his chamber. the shouting and threats were given at that time. the very nature of shouting and threats to mr. aggarwal, the judge of that court amounts to substantial interference with the administration of justice. mr. aggarwal as per the facts which have come on record was so disturbed because of the shouting and threats that he had to rise from the court and report the matter to his senior. thereforee, it cannot be said that it is a technical contempt. a judge has no means of defending himielf. in the very nature of things, be cannot engage himself in an open war. the respect for the courts must be fostered, for otherwise he pillars on which our system of laws and administration of justice stands are bound to be weekend thereby prejudicing the struggle of the people engaged in the vindication of their rights, it was so held in the case of the state v. dewan ram dass t. chugani 1969 dlt 526. the contemner instead of understanding the gravity of the situation, took it to be a case where the judge was trying to settle his individual scores with him through the instrumentalities of these proceedings. unfortunately, being a police officer (ips) he should have seen that his conduct should not in any way ridicule the judicial officer in the eye of the public. mindless of his action which be committed, he has tried to justify the same by going to the extent of writing in his reply that the behavior of shri s m. aggarwal was unbecoming of a judicial officer. this shows the tenor in which para.4 (i of the reply is written. it shows the attitude of the contemner and also his intention as. depicted in para 3of his reply though subsequently, he tendered apology. it also shows the behavior and conduct of the contemner. (11) the contemner has tried to justify his action of going to the court of shri s.m. aggarwal. he has alf6 raised the defense that there are infirmities in the complaint sent by shri s.m. aggarwal dated march 7, 1990 and the affidavits of the court staff. thereforee, according to him no reliance can be placed on these affidavits and the complaint. our attention was drawn to the said complaint of shri s.m. aggarwal. it is pointed out that in the said complaint shri s.m. aggarwal has mentioned as 'by these undesirable and uncalled for threats i was prevented from holding my court. i immediately had to rush to mr. mohd. shamim, in charge of shahdara courts to verbally intimate the incident. shahdara bar has also already come to know of this incident as one of the learned member of the bar had seen my vehicle being stopped on g.t. road and talking to the police officer on duty there'. mr. s.k. sinha, advocate appearing for contemner contended that if the incident had beer, seen by a member of the bar then his affidavit ought to have been filed. no such affidavit has been placed on record we are afraid, this argument is without force. the said car of shri s.m. aggarwal was seen by the member of the bar at g.t. road when mr. aggarwal was talking to police officer at the police check-post. police check-post is at g.t. road and mr.aggarwal's car was stopped at the check-post because of the wireless message received. in his complaint mr. aggarwal has mentioned that member of the bar saw him talking to 'police officers on duly'. throughout the incident only a police check-post, police officers were on duty. thereforee if this was seen by the member of the bar, it was not necessary for bar member to file any affidavit. (12) mr. s.k. sinha, advocate for the contemner pointed-out some other infirmities in the complaint of shri s.m. aggarwal addressed to the high court dated march 7, 1990 as well as in the affidavits of the staff of his court. we have perused the complaint as well as the affidavits and find no substantial infirmities leading to the root of the case. mr. sinha, then contended that no reliance can be placed on the affidavits of the staff of the court of shri aggarwal because these affidavits have been produced on the record of this court by the bar association, shahdara. the argument of mr. sinha is also without force. the law has been well-settled by the supreme court in the case of shri c.k. daphtary & others v. shri 0.p. gupta and others reported in 0065/1971 : 1971crilj844 . while delivering the judgment sikri, chief justice at p. 651 observed :- 'this court can issue a notice suo motu. further, the advocates of this court, including the president of the supreme court bar association are perfectly entitled to bring to our notice any contempt of this court..................'.........-......-......-.............. be that as it may, there is nothing in law which prevents this court from entertaining a petition at the instance of the president of the supreme court bar association and three other advocates of the court. the bar is vitally concerned in the maintenance of the dignity of courts and the proper administration of justice.' the supreme court, thereforee, opined that bar is vitally concerned. we. thereforee, don't see any reason to ignore the affidavits of the officials of the court of shri s.m aggarwal because these have been filed by the bar association of shabdara. in fact, in view of the supreme court decision, the members of the shahdara bar are vitally interested in maintaining the dignity of the courts and the administration of justice. thereforee, these affidavits 'can be looked into. (13) shri s.k.sinha, then contended that neither in the affidavits of shri maiku ram, orderly nor of shri s.p. chauhan, reader of the court 0f in the affidavit of shri n.k.malhotra, stenographer it has been mentioned that the contemner pushed orderly namely shri chander shekhar in the court of shri s.m. aggarwal. shri aggarwal in his complaint also never mentioned that be reached court at 10.20 a.m. whereas in these affidavits the time has been shown as 10.20 or 10.25 a. m. which is after-thought. the perusal of these affidavits as well as the complaint of shri s.m. aggarwal read together do not in any way point out any infirmity or contradiction so serious in nature that it would disentitle these affidavits any consideration. in act, a bare reading of these affidavits would throw light on the incident which happened inside the court room on march 7, 1993. there is no contradiction or variation on material facts pleaded in these affidavits. (14) shri s.k. sinha then stated that affidavits cannot be relied upon because these officials were subordinate to shri s.m. aggarwal. the question is not that these officials were subordinate to shri s.m. aggarwal. the question is not that these officials were subordinate to shri s.m. aggarwal, the question is whether the version given by them in their affidavits inspire confidence and worth reliance. so far as shri maiku ram is concerned, he was the second orderly in the court of sh. s.m. aggarwal and was sitting on the rear seat in the said car at the time of incident near the bridge. thereforee, he had seen both the incidents at yamuna bridge as well as in the court room itself. his presence inside the said car on the date of the incident has been admitted by the contemner. he being the orderly of the court of shri s.m. aggarwal was supposed to be present with him in the court. mr. maiku ram's version inspire confidence and there is nothing on record to disbelieve him. as regard affidavit of shri n.k. malhotra, stenographer mere non-mentioning in his affidavit about contemner pushing aside the orderly shri chander shekhar, will not discredit his version. mr. sinha then contended that at about 10.20 or 10.25 am. the court was supposed to be over-crowded and the public must be standing there. but neither any public person nor the affidavit of any lawyer has been filed. this argument of mr. sinha has also no force. it is a mere presumption that at that time there must have been public persons or lawyer standing inside the court- room. however, the members of the shahdara bar have passed a resolution demanding action against the contemner which itself show- that the bar support the version of shri s.m. aggarwal.. it was not necessary for him to obtain individual affidavits from private litigants in order to support his case. this incident has to be judged on the basis of the facts which have come en record. the version of the presiding officer which is straightforward and reported immediately, coupled with the affidavits of court staff is entitled to pre-eminence and obvious acceptance. in this regard reference can be had to the full bench decision of the punjab & haryana high court in the case of courts of its own motion v. bansi lal and others; reported in 1979 (2) cri. l.j. 165 (punjab & haryana) where it was held that : per s.s. sandhawalia, j.- 'as regards any incident or happening in a court of law, the version of the presiding officer is entitled to pre-eminence and obvious acceptance and it is only in the rarest case that it should be disregarded. thus, in respect to such an incident giving rise to contempt proceedings, the presiding officer clearly falls in the category of the wholly truthful and reliable witness. his solitary oral testimony indeed is sufficient to sustain the version more so when it is forthrightly and credibly given.' (15) mr. s k. sinha then urged that the defense taken by the contemner is more plausible. bawa gurcharan singh on the other hand contended that contemner has no right of defense wider sub-section (5) of section 17 of the contempt of courts act. (16) sub-section (5) of section 17 of the contempt of courts act stipulates as under: section 17(5): 'any person charged with contempt under section 15 may file an affidavit in support of his defense, and the court may determine the matter of the charge either on the affidavits filed or after taking such further evidence as may be necessary, and pass such order as the justice of the case requires.' (17) bawa gurcharan singh argued that contemner has no right of defense. it is a peculiar type of an offence which is a class by itself and, thereforee, it has a procedure for itself. evidence to justify allegations amounting to contempt is not permissible. reference can be had io the decision of supreme court in the case of shri c k. daphtary and others v. shri o.p.gupta and others reported in 0065/1971 : 1971crilj844 where it was observed : 'we indicated to him during the course of the hearing that he should file his affidavit or. affidavits dealing with the merits of the case but that he would not be permitted to lead any other evidence to justify contempt. we have already referred to cases which show that he cannot justify contempt.......-if evidence was to be allowed to justify allegations amounting to contempt of court it would tend to encourage disappointed litigants-and one party or the other to a case is always disappointed-to avenge their defeat by abusing the judge.' hence bawa gurcharan singh urged that contemner cannot be permitted to justify his defense by pleading evidence. all, that is necessary, is that the procedure is fair and the contemner is aware of the charge against him and that he is given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. we see no quarrel with this proposition of law as urged by bawa gurcharan singb. but at the same time we cannot loose sight of the fact that this. act contemplates a procedure of its own wherein affidavits can be taken as evidence and the same cannot be completely brushed aside. admittedly contemner cannot lead evidence bat after going through his affidavit filed in reply to show cause notice we find no merits in the same, nor it can be said that what has been. stated by shri s.m. aggarwal. additional sessions judge is not believable or reliable. (18) having come to the conclusion that contemnor did not interfere with the due course of justice and thus committed a contempt of the court we hold him guilty of gross contempt of the court but taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances we sentence him to pay the fine of rs. 1000.00 and failing to deposit the same he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days.