Civil contempt for breaching a court undertaking: imprisonment set aside because fine is the normal punishment absent special reasons.

Wilful breach of an undertaking given to the court, where that undertaking formed the basis for compounding the complaint and acquittal, constituted civil contempt through deliberate disobedience. The SC held that the finding of contempt was justified on those facts. On punishment, the statutory scheme treats fine as the normal penalty for civil contempt, and imprisonment is reserved for cases where a fine would not meet the ends of justice and special reasons are shown. As no special reason was found, the sentence of imprisonment was set aside and replaced by a fine.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants committed civil contempt by wilfully disobeying the undertaking given to the court, and whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed for such contempt was justified under the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The undertaking given to the court formed the basis on which the accused were permitted to compound the complaint and were acquitted. Breach of that undertaking amounted to wilful disobedience and therefore constituted civil contempt within the meaning of the Act. On sentence, the statutory language of Section 12(3) shows that fine is the normal punishment for civil contempt, while imprisonment is to be imposed only where the court is satisfied that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and special reasons exist. On the facts, no special reason was found to justify imprisonment.

Conclusion: The finding of civil contempt was upheld, but the sentence of imprisonment was set aside and substituted by a fine.

---