PETITIONER:
ARUN KSHETRAPAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT, JABALPUR & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/08/1976
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION:
1976 AIR 1967 1977 SCR (1) 98
1976 SCC (3) 690
ACT
Contempt of Court Act (Act No. 70 of 1971), 1971--Ss.
2(b), 10 and 12(1) read with Article 215, Constitution of
India--Remitting the punishment awarded after accepting the
apology tendered by the contemnor and ordering him to pay
the cost of paper books, whether valid--Whether endorsing to
the Registrar a copy of the wireless message, addressed to
the State counsel, for information only amounts to contempt.
HEADNOTE
Pursuant to telegraphic information dated 5 August 1975
received from the Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh, communi-
cating the directions of the Jabalpur Bench of the, High
Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 1 August 1975, for the produc-
tion of a detenu held under s. 3(1)(a) of the MISA 1971 in
the court on 8 August 1975; the appellant, a district
Magistrate, instructed the Superintendent, Central Jail,
Raipur, to send the detenu to Jabalpur under strong
guard for his production before the High Court on 8 August
1975. The detenu was duly produced in court on 8 August
1975.
While seeking a clarification from the Home Secretary,
on the order passed by the State-Government under s. 268,
Criminal Procedure Code, which was gazetted on 1 August
1975, as to whether the detenu, under the MISA is to be
produced before the High Court in connection with the habeas
corpus petition, the appellant also spoke to the Government
advocate and the Advocate General about the notification.
Since they desired the copy of the notification, the appel-
lant despatched a wireless message to Advocate-General as
follows
"In the light of the above notification, he was
requested to request the court not to insist on the
production of VBT as there is strong. possibility
of disturbance of public order if VBT is taken out
from jail. Kindly inform the Government regarding
the action taken."
A copy of the wireless message was endorsed to the respond-
ent by ’way of abundant caution. Viewing this as amounting
to an expression by the appellant of his inability to obey
the order of the. court on account of the notification
issued by the State, Government published in the official
gazette on 1 August 1975, the High Court, in exercise of the
powers of the court under Art. 215 of the Constitution read
with s. 10 of the Contempt of Court Act (Act No. 70 of 1971)
ordered the appellant to show cause why he should not be
committed for contempt, for which the appellant submitted
his reply in the form of an affidavit pleading for the
discharge of rule nisi on the ground that no contempt of
court was committed and that the wireless message to the
Advocate-General did not constitute a contempt of court.
The High Court found the appellant guilty for contempt by
holding that the appellant had sent the wireless message
dated 6 August 1975 without waiting for the reply from the
State Government regarding the clarification of its notifi-
cation, and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to.
suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court under s. 4
of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 and to pay a fine of Rs.
100/-. The High Court, however, accepted the apology of the
appellant for the purpose of remitting the punishment under
the proviso to s. 12(1) of the Act and remitted the sentence
and ordered the appellant to. pay the paper book costs and
to bear his own costs. Hence the appeal under s. 19(1)(b)
of the Act.
Accepting the appeal to this Court,
HELD: The order of the High Court cannot be sustained in
view of the tender of apology by the appellant as well as
the production of the detenu.[102 D]
All these features, namely, referring to the Home Secre-
tary for clarification of the notification dated 1 August
1975, sending a copy of the said notification
99
to the Advocate-General, directing the Superintendent,
Central Jail, to produce the detenu before the court and the
detenu, in fact, having been produced before the High
Court--indicate that the appellant throughout acted in a
careful and responsible manner and took all steps in good
faith. [101 B-CF]
HELD FURTHER: In the instant case, the appellant from
the. beginning gave directions for production of the detenu.
The. wireless message was not addressed to the court, but to
the Advocate-General, only to apprise him of the notifica-
tion sent by the State Government so that a request may be
made to the court not to insist on the production of the
detenu in the interest of public order. The copy thereof to
the Registrar is for information only. The absence. of
reference to the. telephonic talk in the affidavit does net
mean that no such talk in fact took place. The appellant
tendered apology with grace and not as a coward. The appel-
lant at no stage interfered with any order of the High
Court. The appellant never showed any disobedience. On the
contrary, the appellant acted in obedience to the order of
the High Court. [101 F, G-H, 1012 A-D]
JUDGMENT
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
AppealNo. 21 of 1976.
(From the judgment and Order dated 20-8-1975 of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Criminal
Case No. 1010/75).
B. Sen, Mrs. A.K. Verma, 1. B. Dadachanji, O.C.
Mathur and R. Narain, for the appellant.
Nemo, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J.--This is an appeal under section 19(1)(b) of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 referred to as the Act
against the order dated 20 August,. 1975 of the High Court
at Jabalpur convicting the appellant and sentencing him to
suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court under
section 4 of the Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. The
High Court however accepted the apology of the appellant for
the purpose of remitting the punishment under the proviso
to section 12(1) of the Act and remitted the sentence and
ordered the appellant to pay the paper book costs and to
bear his own costs.
The appellant is a District Magistrate of District
Rajnandgaon in Madhya Pradesh.
A detenu Vidya Bhushan Thakur challenged in the High
Court by way of a habeas corpus petition the validity of
his detention order passed by the appellant under section
3(1 )(a) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.
On 1 August, 1975 the High Court directed the production
of the detenu in court on 8 August, 1975.
On 5 August, 1975 the appellant received a telegram
from the office of the Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh
intimating the appellant the order of the High Court to
produce the detenu Vidya Bhushan Thakur before the High
Court on 8 August, 1975 in connection with the habeas corpus
petition.
Immediately on receipt of the telegram from the office
of the Advocate General the appellant communicated the same
to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur directing him to
send the detenu to
100
Jabalpur under strong guard for his production before the
High Court on 8 August, 1975. The order was communicated to
the Superintendent, Central Jail Raipur on the same day and
accordingly the Superintendent, sent the detenu on 6 August,
1975 at 5.35 p.m. to Jabalpur and thereafter the detenu was
duly produced in Court on 8 August, 1975.
The State Government had passed an order under section
268 of the Criminal Procedure Code which was published in
the Official Gazette on 1 August, 1975. The appellant
referred the matter to the Home Secretary for clarification
of .the notification vide a wireless message dated 6
August, 1975 as to whether the detenus under the Maintenance
of Internal Security Act are to. be produced before the
High Court in connection with the,habeas corpus petitions.
The appellant also spoke to the Government Advocate on 6
August 1975 and brought to his notice the above notifica-
tion of the State Government. The Government Advocate in-
formed the appellant on telephone, that neither the Advocate
General nor the ,High Court had so far received a copy of
the said notification. The appellant then informed the
Government Advocate that he would be sending a copy of the
said notification by wireless for information. The appel-
lant despatched the wireless message to the Government
AdVocate at Advocate General’s address quoting the notifica-
tion as received from the Government.
The wireless message quoted the. notification and the
request of the appellant to the Advocate General was as
follows :--
"In the light of above Government Notifica-
tion he was requested to request the Court not to
insist on the production of Vidya Bhushan Thakur as
there is strong possibility of disturbance of
public order if Vidya Bhusban Thakur is taken out
from jail. Kindly inform the Government regarding
the action taken."
On 6 August, 1975 after the telephonic conversation with
the Government Advocate, the appellant again directed the
Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur to produce the detenu
before the High Court on the date of hearing and informed
the Advocate General that the detenu would be produced
before the High COurt and the detenu was in fact produced
before the Court.
The High Court took the view that the wireless message
dated 6 August, 1975 addressed to the Advocate General with
a copy to the. Registrar of the High CoUrt amounted to an
expression by the appellant of his inability to obey the
order of the Court on account of the notification issued by
the State Government published in the Official Gazette on 1
August, 1975. The High Court ordered the appellant to show
cause why he should not be committed for contempt in exer-
cise of the’ powers of the Court under Article 215 of the
Constitution read with section 10 of the Act.
The appellant appeared before the High Court on 13
August, 1975. The case was adjourned to 14 August, 1975 to
enable the filing of a reply which was submitted in the form
of an affidavit together with some enclosures. The appel-
lant pleaded for the discharge of Rule
101
Nisi on the ground that no contempt of court was committed
and that wireless message to the Advocate General did not
constitute a contempt of court.
The High Court by order dated 20 August, 1975 found the
appellant guilty of contempt by holding that the appellant
had sent the wireless message dated 6 August, 1975 without
waiting for reply from the State Government regarding the
clarification of its Notification.
The appellant on 6 August, 1975 referred to the Home
Secretary for clarification of the notification dated 1
August, 1975. The appellant sent a copy of the notification
to the Advocate General. The appellant also directed the
Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur to produce the
detenu before the Court. The detenu in fact was pro-
duced before the High Court. All these features indicate
that the appellant throughout acted in a careful and re-
sponsible manner.
The reply of the Government to the clarification asked
for by the appellant on 6 August, 1975 was received on 8
August, 1975, that is to say two days after the wireless
message had been sent to the Advocate General. The clarifi-
cation message of the Government reached the appellant in
the afternoon of 8 August, 1975, viz., the date on which the
detenu was to have been produced in court. The State Govern-
ment in the note clarifying the position informed the appel-
lant that in case the appellant was advised to produce the
detenu before the High Court and if the High Court insisted
on such production the High Court should be informed well
before the date on which the detenu is to be produced by an
affidavit sworn by an officer in charge that there is danger
to public order if the detenu as produced. It appears that
the appellant had acted just as the Government clarification
suggested.
The appellant gave the notification to the Advocate General
because the latter did not have it and asked for it. The
appellant asked for clarification from the State Government
as to the notification because of the situation in which he
was placed. The appellant sent instructions to the
Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur to produce the detenu.
The detenu was produced before the High Court. The appellant
took all steps in good faith. The appellant from the
beginning gave directions for production of the detenu.
The High Court held that the affidavit of the appellant
contained no reference to the telephonic talk with the
Advocate General pursuant to which a telegram had been sent
and therefore it was a false affidavit. The High Court also
held that sending a copy of the wireless message addressed
to the Advocate General to the Registrar of the High Court
for information amounted to an attempt to interfere with the
order of the High Court.
The appellant sent a copy of the wireless message ad-
dressed to the Advocate General to the Registrar for infor-
mation only. The appellant took all steps to produce the
detenu even before the receipt of the clarification or
advice by the State Government for production of the detenu
before the High Court. The appellant sent the wireless
message to the Advocate General only to apprise him of the
notification sent by the State Government. The appellant
sent that information inasmuch
102
as the Government Advocate had informed the appellant that
neither the Advocate General nor the High Court was aware of
the said notification issued by the State Government. The
appellant requested the Advocate General to request the
Court not to insist on the production having regard to the
public order which request was consistent with the direction
of the State Government.
The absence of reference to the telephonic talk in the
affidavit does not mean that no such talk in fact took
place. The appellant produced the telephone bill as well as
the letter of the Advocate General to show that there was in
fact a telephonic conversation. The appellant communicated
to the Advocate General in the discharge of his official
duties the notification issued by the Government. The
appellant requested the Advocate General to request the High
Court not to insist on the production. The wireless. mes-
sage was not addressed to the Court.The original addressee
was the Advocate General. A copy was sent to the Registrar
for information that such a telegram had been sent to the
Advocate General.
The appellant tendered apology with grace and not as a
coward.The appellant produced the detenu. The appellant at
no stage interfered with any order of the High Court. The
appellant never showed any disobedience. On the contrary
the appellant acted in obedience to the order of the High
Court.
The High Court accepted the apology for the limited
purpose of remitting the punishment. The order of the High
Court cannot be sustaining in view of the tender of apology
by the appellant as well as the production of the detenu.
The appeal is accepted. The judgment and order of the High
Court are set aside.
S.R. Appeal allowed.
103