TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pappu, a man of absolutely clear antecedents, never involved in any criminal case, who was running a sweet mart shop, was going to Allahabad by Prayagraj Express on 29.05.1997. He was apprehended by Deep Chand, Sub-Inspector of Police, posted at Police Station, Sector 24, Noida and Constable Ramesh Chandra, posted in the office of Superintendent of Police (R.A.) Ghaziabad along with some other policemen, from Shyamal Chauk, Sibbanpura, Ghaziabad. Tej Veer Singh was carrying a briefcase containing clothes and Rs. 40000/- in cash apart from the ticket. At the time of apprehending, neither the reason for his arrest nor the destination, where he was being taken to, was disclosed to him. His family members ran from pillar to post to know his whereabouts but in vain. On 30.05.1997, telegraphic information regarding abduction of Tej Veer Singh @ Pappu by police was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad and Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone. 3. No action was taken on the aforesaid FIR, thus Smt. Ramwati, mother of Tej Veer Singh made complaint to the Senior Suptd. of Police, Ghaziabad, Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and the Chairman, National Human Right....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... during the inquiry by the District Judge, no notice/opportunity of hearing was given to him. The High Court asked the District Judge, Ghaziabad to provide an opportunity of hearing to the said applicant-Sujan Singh and submit a supplementary report. The said report was submitted on 10.07.1998 exonerating Sujan Singh from any criminal liability. Sahdeo Singh and Ramesh Chandra submitted their replies to the said Show Cause Notices dated 4.12.1997. Lila Dhar did not submit any reply. As the whereabouts of Tej Veer Singh could not be known, the High Court disposed of the Habeas Corpus petition vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2001 transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter called, "CBI"). In contempt case, the Court came to the conclusion that taking the said Tej Veer Singh into custody, was in violation of the directions issued by this Court in D. K. Basu (supra) and held all the three alleged contemnors guilty. Constable Ramesh Chandra was sentenced for six months' imprisonment and a fine of rupees one lakh was imposed. In addition, Rs. 5000/- was imposed as costs. The appellants were imposed the punishment of six months' imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e District Judge, the Habeas Corpus petition was disposed of vide Order dated 20.12.2001 presuming that Tej Veer Singh was dead. 8. Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called `Evidence Act') provides for presumption of a person being dead in case he has not been heard of for seven years. In the instant case, only a period of 4 years had elapsed. Therefore, we are not able to understand as under what circumstances, such a presumption could be drawn by the High Court. 9. The proceedings of contempt are quasi-criminal in nature. In a case where the order passed by the court is not complied with by mistake, inadvertence or by mis-understanding of the meaning and purport of the order, unless it is intentional, no charge of contempt can be brought home. There may possibly be a case where disobedience is accidental. If that is so, there would be no contempt. (Vide B.K. Kar Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his companion Justices of the Orissa High Court & Anr., AIR 1961 SC 1367). 10. Similarly, in Debabrata Bandopadhyay & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr., AIR 1969 SC 189, this Court has observed as under:- "A question whether there is co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Vs. Hirak Ghosh & Ors. AIR 2002 SC 1405; Daroga Singh & Ors. Vs. B.K. Pandey, (2004) 5 SCC 26; and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs. L.K. Tripathi & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1314, this Court held that burden and standard of proof in contempt proceedings, being quasi-criminal in nature, is the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings, for the reason that contempt proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature. Similarly, in Mrityunjoy Das & Anr. Vs. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1293, this Court placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments, including, V.G. Nigam & Ors. Vs. Kedar Nath Gupta & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 215; and Murray & Co. Vs. Ashok Kumar Newatia & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 833, held that jurisdiction of the contempt has been conferred on the Court to punish an offender for his contemptuous conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, but in the case of quasi- criminal in nature, charges have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and alleged contemnor becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt. It would be very hazardous to impose sentence in contempt proceedings on some probabilities. 14. In Dr. L.P. Misra Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1998 SC 333....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is sui generis. In other words, it is not strictly controlled by the provisions of CrPC and the Evidence Act. What, however, applies to a proceeding of contempt of court are the principles of natural justice and those principles apply to the contempt proceeding with greater rigour than any other proceeding. This means that the court must follow a procedure that is fair and objective; that should cause no prejudice to the person facing the charge of contempt of court and that should allow him/her the fullest opportunity to defend himself/herself." (Emphasis added) 18. This Court In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the alleged contemnor) (1995) 2 SCC 584, has observed that a contempt amounts to an offence but it is an offence sui generis and hence for such an offence, the procedure adopted both under the common law and the statute law has always been summary. The Court held that in spite of the fact that it is a summary procedure, there must be an opportunity to the alleged contemnor of meeting the charge. The degree of precision with which the charge may be stated depends upon the circumstances. So long as the gist of the specific allegation is made clear or otherwise the contemnor is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence to the statutory Rules framed for the purpose. 21. The instant cases are required to be examined in view of the aforesaid settled legal proposition. The contempt proceedings had been initiated under the Act, 1971. Section 23 of the Act 1971 enables the High Court to frame rules providing for a procedure in contempt cases. In view thereof, the Allahabad High Court framed the rules by adding chapter XXXV-E in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter called the `Rules 1952') vide amendment published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette, Part II dated 12.2.1977. As per the said rules, a criminal contempt is to be dealt with by the Division Bench and a detailed procedure to file the application etc. has been laid down therein. Once the Court is prima facie satisfied that there is a case to proceed with the contempt against a person concerned, the Division Bench in such case has to proceed giving strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the Rules 1952. Rule 5 of the Chapter XXXV-E reads as under:- "5. Issuance of notice. - Such allegations contained in the petition as appears to the Court to make out a prima facie case of contempt of Court against the person c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ALLAHABAD QUASI CRIMINAL SIDE NO.48- NOTICE In the matter of Crl. Miscellaneous Contempt Case No.69/97 Between State of U.P. ..Applicant And Ramesh Chandra & Ors. ..Opposite Party Sri Lilidhar Constable Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad. To, WHEREAS the abovenamed applicant has represented to this Court that you have committed contempt of court. AND WHEREAS the 31st day of March, 1998 has been fixed for the hearing of the said case: NOTICE is hereby given to you calling upon you to appear in person in this Court on the above mentioned date at 10 O' clock in the forenoon to show cause why you should not be punished for contempt of court. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, This 20th day of February, 1998. Deputy Registrar Allahabad" 23. The notices had been served upon the appellants and other alleged contemnor. There was no case filed by the State of U.P. before the High Court in respect of abduction of Tej Veer Singh nor any application for initiating contempt proceedings was ever filed by any person. Admittedly, the proceedings were initiated by the High Court suo motu. The notice itself remains incomplet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned judgment and order, so far as the conviction of the appellants in Contempt proceedings are concerned, is liable to be set aside. 25. By the impugned judgment and order, Constable Ramesh Chandra was convicted and punished with imprisonment for six months. Further, a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of Rs. 5000/- were also imposed on him. We are told that during the pendency of his appeals, i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos. 530 & 532 of 2002, Constable Ramesh Chandra has died and those appeals have been disposed of accordingly. Appellants were, however, convicted and imposed punishment as referred to hereinabove. 26. In the instant cases, the record reveals that the Habeas Corpus petition was taken by the High Court on 30.07.1997 and directed the District Judge, Ghaziabad to hold the inquiry on the allegations made in the Habeas Corpus petition. The District Judge submitted the report on 03.12.1997. The Court considered the case on 4.12.1997 and initiated contempt proceedings against appellants and others suo motu. Matter was remanded to the District Judge for further inquiry in view of the fact that Sujan Singh was not heard in the earlier inquiry. The District Judge, Ghaziabad, su....