Mr Parithi Ilamvazhuthi (Respondent No 1 & Accused) was elected as Member\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of Legislative Assembly (in short \u2018MLA\u2019) of the Egmore Constituency, Chennai in\u00a0 the Elections held on 10.05.2001 to the Tamil\u00a0 Nadu State Legislative Assembly.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In respect ofviolence on the day of election, Respondent No. 1\u00a0 was arrested\u00a0 and remanded to judicial custody on\u00a0 17.05.2001. On\u00a0 the same day,\u00a0 that is,\u00a0 on 17.05.2001, Mr Mutthu Karuppan (Appellant & Alleged contemnor) was appointed as Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City and assumed charge. On 21.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 moved an application for bail in Crl. M.P. No. 1379 of 2001 before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate which was dismissed on\u00a0\u00a0 the same day. On 22.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 moved an application for bail before the Sessions Judge in Crl. M.P. No. 6277 of 2001 mainly on\u00a0 the\u00a0 ground that as the new Assembly Session commences on 22.05.2001, he has to take oath and further the victim, namely, one Mr David has also been discharged from the hospital. On 23.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 was granted conditional bail by the Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that he has to take oath as MLA. Against\u00a0 grant of bail to Respondent No. 1, Inspector of\u00a0 Police-(Respondent\u00a0 No.\u00a0 2)\u00a0 filed an application being Crl. O.P. No. 9352 of 2001 on 24.05.2001 for cancellation of bail with application for stay before the High Court. On the same day, vacation Judge of the High Court stayed the order of grant of bail to Respondent No. 1 till 29.05.2001 on the ground that victim, namely, David is in serious condition and\u00a0 the accused Respondent No. 1 is in police custody.<\/p>\n
By pointing out that the information furnished by Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit filed in support of the application for stay of the order of grant of bail regarding his police custody is false, Respondent No. 1 filed a counter affidavit praying for vacation of the stay granted by the High Court. On 29.05.2001, Respondent No. 2 filed his reply affidavit submitting that on 23.05.2001 application seeking police custody of other 8 accused were made and in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to cancel the bail, by oversight, it was mentioned that police custody was also obtained in respect of the Respondent No.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
filed by Respondent No. 2 to cancel the bail granted to the first Respondent by\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the Sessions Judge.<\/p>\n
After the order dated 30.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 filed Contempt Application\u00a0 No. 397 of 2001 before the High Court stating that on the direction, supervision\u00a0 and knowledge of the Appellant herein, Respondent No. 2 moved an application\u00a0\u00a0 to cancel the bail granted to him on the basis of false statement thereby prevented him from attending the Assembly. On 29.10.2004, the Division Bench of the High Court proceeded on the fact that the Commissioner of Police-Appellant herein was aware of the arrest of Respondent No. 1 and also of the fact that as an elected\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 MLA because of the wrong information by Respondent No. 2, the High Court stayed the order of bail and he was prevented from assuming office as MLA and dealt with the matter and finally convicted him under Section 2(c) of the Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days under Section 12 of\u00a0 the Act. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, Appellant herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 2004 before this Court.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Question arises whether the Appellant was guilty of criminal Contempt? Whether the consent of the Advocate General required ? Whether a false statement in an affidavit by the junior office could be considered as the false statement made by\u00a0 the senior with the intention of misleading the court? Whether the court could\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 be compelled to initiate the contempt proceedings.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent, but there must be a prima facie <\/em>case of \u201cdeliberate falsehood\u201d on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge.<\/p>\n The contempt proceedings being quasi criminal in nature, burden and standard\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of proof is the same as required in criminal cases. The charges\u00a0 have to be framed as per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not permit imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings\u00a0\u00a0 on mere probabilities, equally, the court cannot punish the alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures andsurmises.<\/p>\n If the issue involved in the proceedings have greater impact on the administration\u00a0 of justice and on the justice delivery system, the court is competent to go into\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the contempt proceedings even without the consent of the Advocate General as\u00a0\u00a0 the case may be.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The analysis of affidavits of the Inspector of Police, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police show that there is no acceptable material that the affidavit containing wrong information filed by Respondent No. 2 for cancellation of bail and stay of bail order was made at the instance of the Commissioner\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of Police. It is also clear that when the information about mentioning wrong statement in the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 against the grant of bail order was brought to the notice of the Appellant on 28.05.2001 by Deputy Commissioner of Police, namely, one Mr Christopher Nelson, the Appellant immediately asked him to direct Respondent No. 2 to file proper affidavit before\u00a0 the High Court and clarify the matter by placing proper facts. It is also clear\u00a0 from the affidavit of the government counsel E. Raja that he himself drafted the affidavit purely on the instructions of Respondent No. 2 and that the Appellant herein had no personal knowledge nor did he instruct the counsel to prepare affidavit or petition to move for cancellation of the bail. As a matter of fact, Respondent No. 2 has specifically denied the allegation that the application for cancellation of bail was moved under the direction, supervision and knowledge\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of the Appellant. When a city like Chennai is managed by several police officers from the level of police constable to the Commissioner of Police, in the absence of specific reference about consultation with the Commissioner of Police it cannot be presumed and concluded that the Appellant was responsible for giving incorrect information by Respondent No. 2 before the High Court.<\/p>\n The jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for contempt as\u00a0 also the\u00a0 jurisdiction\u00a0 to punish for contempt are discretionary with the court. Contempt generally and criminal contempt certainly is a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor. No one can compel or demand as of right initiation of proceedings for contempt. The person filing an application or petition before the court does not become a complainant or Petitioner in the proceedings. He is just an informer or relator. His duty ends with the facts being brought to the notice of the court. It\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 is thereafter for the court to act on such information or not. Further\u00a0 Section 15\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of the Act as well as the Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules insist that, particularly, for initiation of criminal contempt, consent of the Advocate General\u00a0\u00a0 is required. Any deviation from the prescribed Rules should not be accepted or condoned lightly and must be deemed to be fatal to the proceedings taken to initiate action for contempt.<\/p>\n In the present case, the above provisions have not been strictly adhered. The order of the High Court convicting the Appellant under Section 2(c) of the Act\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 and sentencing him under Section 12 to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days is set aside. [CA No. 1376 of 2004 dt. 15.04.2011]<\/p>\n Editorial <\/em><\/strong>: In Re: Prashant Bhushan and Ors. Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2020 Decided On: 31.08.2020 (SC) (MANU\/SC\/0653\/2020<\/em><\/strong>), it has been held, that in so far as suo motu <\/em>petitions are concerned, the Supreme Court can\u00a0 very well initiate the proceedings suo motu <\/em>on the basis of information received\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 by it without consent of Attorney General. The Honourable Court sentenced the contemnor with a fine of Rs 1 (Rupees one) to be deposited with the Registry by 15-9-2020 failing which he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further be debarred from practicing in this court for a period\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of three years. This relaxation was held to \u00a0be\u00a0 applicable only in\u00a0 cases where\u00a0 the court suo moto <\/em>proceeded against the contemnor and in all other cases the consent where provided by the statute of the AG was held to be essential for the valid proceedings.<\/p>\n \u201cThe test of friendship is assistance in adversity, and that too, unconditionalassistance.<\/em><\/p>\n Co-operation which needs consideration is\u00a0 a commercial contract and not friendship. Conditional co-operation is like adulterated cement which does notbind.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n – Mahatma Gandhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.Held<\/h3>\n
\nS.2(c) : Criminal contempt- Filing of false affidavit with intent to mislead the court \u2013 To be proved beyond reasonable doubt \u2013 Consent of Advocate General before initiating Contempt proceedings. [S.12 , 15, Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules, 1975]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allied-laws"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3qk","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13164"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13164\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13165,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13164\/revisions\/13165"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}