Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
DEEPAK KUMAR PRAHLADKA v. CHIEF JUSTICE PRABHA SHANKER MISHRA AND ANR. APRIL 28, 2004 [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] Contempt of Court: Contempt proceedings-Notice-Held, before holding a contemnor guilty of contempt and passing an order of imprisonment against him he is C entitled to a notice and opportunity of hearing.
Petition for contempt of court-Held, could not be heard and disposed of by the very same Judges of the High Court who were respondents therein- Practice and Procedure. A Division Bench of the High Court, noticing some newspaper reports based on the statement of the appellant as contemptuous, directed issue of suo motu contempt notice to him. The appellant, instead of filing reply to the contempt notice, filed a contempt petition against the two Judges. Another Division Bench of the High Court while dismissing an application filed by E the appellant u/s 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, observed that the appellant pretending to be a researcher on law and judiciary and claiming to have researched several judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court, only exhibited ignorance of'law by filing the said application. The appellant filed a second contempt petition against these Judges also contending that the charge against him that he pretended to be a researcher of law and F judiciary, was false. Both the contempt petitions filed by the appellant were dismissed and he was found guilty of contempt of court for having made contemptuous and reckless averments scandalizing the Court in the said two contempt petitions and was sentenced to six months imprisonment with fine. In the appeals the appellant confined his arguments to his conviction G and sentence, and contended that it was not permissible in law to hold him guilty of contempt for filing the contempt petitions and making averments therein, without issue of notice to him and affording a reasonable opportunity to respond; and that the second contempt petition filed by him could not be fl
A heard and decided by the very same Judges who were respondents therein. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD:
1. Undoubtedly, the course adopted by the appellant was very shocking and·primafacie the filing of the two contempt petitions and nature B of insinuations against the Judges therein were contemptuous; but howsoe\'er glaring the facts of the case may be, the appellant was entitled to a notice and an opportunity before holding him guilty of contempt and passing an order of imprisonment against him. From the record it seems evident that neither any notice was issued nor a reasonable opportunity was afforded to the appellant C before passing the impugned judgment and order. [839-B-C)
2. The second contempt petition could not have been heard and disposed of by the Judges since they were respondents in the said petition. The prayer in that case, though totally misconceived, was to initiate contempt proceedings against the Judges who heard and disposed it of. Justice should not only be D done but should also appear to have been donc. lt may further be noticed that the present is not a case of contempt in the face of the court. It is a case where the averments made in the two contempt petitions are prima facie contemptuous and tend to scandalize the court. (839-D-E)
3; Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and keeping in view E the improvement in the approach of the appellant in these years, while maintaining dismissal of the two contempt petitions filed by the appellant, the conviction and seQtence are set aside. (840-B)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 845 of 1998. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.5.98 of the Calcutta High Court in CPAN. No. 902of1998. WITH Crl. Appeal No. 846 OF 1998
Appellant in person Deepankar P. Gupta and Praveen Kumar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.K. PRAHLADKAv. CJ. PRABHA SHANKER MISHRA [SABHARWAL, J.] Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. These appeals have been filed against the A impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 5th May, 1998, holding the appellant guilty of contempt of court for having made contemptuous and reckless averments scandalizing the Cm~rt in two Contempt Petitions which he had filed in the High Court and sentencing him to six months' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000. The proceedings in the said two Contempt Petitions No. 333of1997 and CPAN No. 902of1998 were B also disposed of in terms of the impugned judgment and order. This Court granted to the appellant an order of stay of sentence of imprisonment only. Before release, the appellant had already undergone an imprisonment for 36 days.
CC No. 333/97 imd CPAN No. 902/98 were filed by the appellant before c the High Court for initiating contempt of court proceedings against the respondents who at that point of time were the sitting judges of the High Court. CC No. 333/97 was filed on 4th December, 1997, against the two judges who were members of the Division Bench which made an order dated 16th September, 1997 directing issue of suo motu contempt notice to the appellant D noticing in their order that the newspaper reports based on the statement of the appellant were prima facie contemptuous. By the said order the appellant was also directed to file a supplementary affidavit giving details of his educational qualifications in justification of his claim of being a law researcher, to furnish details of the contempt application which he has allegedly made E and which was pending before the High Court and reasons and justification for the statements made in the newspaper with the materials on which he may claim to have relie<l. Prima facie, the Court found that the newspaper reports tend to interfere with the administration of justice. In terms of the orders dated 13th August and 16th September, 1997, suo motu contempt notice dated 26th September, 1997 was issued to the appellant.
The second contempt petition (CPAN No. 90~/98) was filed by the appellant on 24th April, 1998, against two other Hon'ble judges who were members of another Division Bench which passed an order dated 12th January, 1998 dismissing an application which the appellant had filed under Section 340, Cr.P.C. In the judgment dated 12th January, 1998, the Division Bench Q made observations to the following effect :-
"Pretending to be a researcher on law and judiciary and claiming he has successfully researched several judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court in regard to interpretation of law and power H 'exercised by the Courts, the petitioner Deepak Kumar Prahldka has only exhibited ignorance of law by filing the instant petition.?' According to the appellant, the charge that he pretended to be a researcher of law and judiciary, was false and had been made without reference to any evidence and in this view the appellant prayed· that the contempt of B court proceedings be initiated against the judges who were members of the Division Bench.
For deci~ion of these appeals, we would assume as correct the claim which the appellant had made at the relevant time that he is a researcher on law and judiciary, having researched several judgments of Supreme Court and . C the High·'Courts in regard to the interpretation of law and power exercised by the courts. On this assumption, the course adopted by the appellant in filing two contempt petitions was rather more shocking since the assumption would also show that the appellant is not a layman but a person well versed with law. It is fully understandable that when an order is passed directing issue D of suo motu contempt notice to the appellant, he contests it on such grounds as may be available in law but the appellant adopted a strange and wholly . uncalled for course of filing contempt petition against the judges who made the order directing issue of such contempt notice. Likewise, it is understandable that if the appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 12th January, 1998, he challenges cbrrectness thereof in appropriate proceedings or if any incorrect E factual statement is made in that order, he seeks an order for expunging that statement but, instead of so doing, he files a contempt case (CPAN No. 902/ 98) against the judges who passed the order dismissing his application under Section, 340 Cr.P.C.
When the aforesaid two contempt petitions came up for consideration F before a Division Bench, which Comprised of two Hon'ble Judges who had passed the order dated 12th January, 1998, the appellant for having made in those petitions sweeping contemptuous remarks against the judges and having gone beyond all norms of a civilized society and having scandalized the court in the manner he filed the contempt petitions and made allegations therein, G was convicted of contempt of c~urt and sentenced as earlier noticed. Both contempt petitions were dismissed.
· The appellant has appeared in person. The.dismissal of the two contempt petitions by the High Court is not under challenge. The appellant submits that he does not wish to challenge the impugned judgment and order to the extent H it dismisses those contempt petitions. The challenge of the appellant is to his D.K. PRAHLADKA v. CJ. PRABHA SHANKER MISHRA [SABHARWAL, J.] conviction and sentence by the impugned judgment and order. The tnain A ground urged by the appellant in support of his challenge is that it was one thing to dismiss the contempt petitions filed by him but it is altogether different to hold him guilty of contempt for filing the said contempt petitions and making averments therein which the appellant contends, is not permissible in law without issue ofnotice to him and affording him a reasonable opportUnity to respond. The second contention of the appellant is that CPAN No. 902/ B 96 could not have been heard and disposed of by the Hon'ble Judges who passed the impugned judgment and order as the judges themselves ~ere respondents in the said petition.
There is merit in both the contentions. Undoubtedly, the course adopted by the appellant was very shocking 'and primafacie the filing of the two contempt petitions and nature ofinsinuatjons C against the judges therein were contemptuous but howsoever glaring the facts of the case may be, the appellant was entitled to a notice and an opportuni!Y before holding him guilty of contempt and passing an order of imprisonment against him. From the record it seems evident that neither any notice was issued nor a reasonable opportunity was afforded to the appellant . before passing the impugned judgment and order. Further, the second contempt D petition could not have been heard and disposed of by the learned Judges since they were respondents in the said petition. The prayer in that case though totally misconceived, was to initiate contempt proceedings against the judges who heard and disposed it of. The justice should not only be d(>ne but should also appear to have been done. It may further be noticed that the E
present is not a case of contempt in the face of the court . It is a case where the averments made in the two contempt petitions are prima facie contemptuous and tend to scandalize the court.
On the aforesaid facts, ordinarily setting aside the impugned judgment and order, we would have remitted the matter to the High Court for issue of F notice and grant of opportunity to the appellant before deciding whether·he is guilty of contempt. But, having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that it is not necessary to remand the case. The appellant has already undergone a sentence for a period of 36 days. Both the contempt petitions (CC No. 333/97 and CPAN No. 902) have been dismissed and the appellant does not wish to challenge the dismissal thereof. Moreover, the G appellant seems to have learnt the lesson in the last six years; Instead of the negative approach as demonstrated by filing of the two co!!_tempt petitions, he claims to have started constructive work of promoting the rights of the prisoners and has joined as a legal correspondent in one -af_the reput~d newspapers in support whereof he has filed the newspaper reports. Th(jse H A reports show that the appellant is working as a legal correspondent. It is claimed by the appellant that reports are widely appreciated by legal fraternity and judges of the ·High Court. The appellant also does not want to lay challenge or hold anyone responsible for the period of 36 days spent by him in jail. .
Having regard to the aforesaid peculiar facts, while maintaining dismissal c of the two contempt petitions, we set aside the impugned judgment and order convicting the appellant for contempt of court and sentencing him as aforesaid. The fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to the appellant. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
RP. Appeals disposed of.