Criminal contempt requires clear proof and strict procedural compliance; conviction set aside for lack of reliable attribution and cognizance safeguards.

Criminal contempt, being quasi-criminal, requires clear proof of deliberate involvement and strict compliance with mandatory initiation safeguards. The SC held that the material did not establish with acceptable certainty that the false affidavit was filed at the appellant's instance or under his direction, and an inference or presumption could not substitute for proof; the contempt finding therefore failed. It also held that the record did not show strict observance of the prescribed procedure for cognizance and initiation of criminal contempt, making the proceedings procedurally unsustainable. The conviction and sentence for contempt were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was proved, on the material on record, to have been responsible for filing or causing the filing of the false affidavit so as to attract criminal contempt; (ii) Whether the contempt proceedings complied with the mandatory procedural requirements governing cognizance and initiation of criminal contempt.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was proved, on the material on record, to have been responsible for filing or causing the filing of the false affidavit so as to attract criminal contempt.

Analysis: Criminal contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and require strict proof. The material relied upon by the High Court did not establish, with acceptable certainty, that the incorrect affidavit was filed at the appellant's instance or under his direction. The affidavits of the subordinate officers referred only to consultation with superior officers, without a specific and reliable attribution to the appellant. The appellant had also explained his stand and tendered an unconditional apology. In the absence of clear proof of deliberate involvement, a finding of contempt could not rest on inference or presumption.

Conclusion: The appellant was not proved to be guilty of criminal contempt.

Issue (ii): Whether the contempt proceedings complied with the mandatory procedural requirements governing cognizance and initiation of criminal contempt.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires strict observance of the prescribed procedure for criminal contempt, including the safeguards concerning cognizance and consent where applicable. The record did not show strict adherence to the procedural requirements under the governing Act and the contempt rules. Given the quasi-criminal character of the proceedings, such non-compliance was material and could not be lightly ignored.

Conclusion: The contempt proceedings were procedurally unsustainable against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence for contempt against the appellant could not be sustained and were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal contempt, being quasi-criminal, can be upheld only on clear proof of deliberate involvement and strict compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards governing initiation and cognizance.

---