A. v. Raman alias A. Venkataraman, In re. VS . — 1997 DIGILAW 35 (MAD)

Judgment :- S.S. Subramani, J. Notice has been served on A.V. Raman alias A.Venkataraman, asking him to appear before court and explain why action should not be taken against him for criminal contempt. Pursuant to the same, he entered appearance and filed his counter statement. 2. Circumstances under which the suo motu contempt was taken, may be stated as follows: Against the alleged contemner, an order was passed by a learned Judge of this Court on 7. 1996 in W.P. Nos.4538 to 4542 of 1996, whereby he was restrained from entering the campus of this Court to do any clerical work and also from meeting any counsel. Against one J.Sudarsan, proceedings had been initiated by this Court, stating that he had committed various misdeeds. The alleged contemner was associated in that office, who claimed himself to be a legal Assistant attached to the said J.Sudarsan. An application was moved by the alleged contemner on 20.6.1996, stating that T.Nagar Police had requested him to come to the police station as required by this Court. It was alleged that the said request was made by a police constable attached to the office of the Commissioner of Police. He filed an affidavit before the learned Judge stating that the person did not bring any notice, but simply said that the case relating to Sudarsan was coming up before court for hearing, and having come to know that the alleged contemner was employed in the office of J.Sudarsan, his presence was required for getting certain infor- mation. He asked his advocate Mr.S.K. Sundaram to file vakalath on his behalf. He also wanted copies of the proceedings to be furnished to him through his counsel. 3. Learned Judge was not satisfied with the statement made in the affidavit and directed that necessary enquiry be made through the office of the Public Prosecutor whether any such incident as stated in the affidavit had happened. Mr.S.K. Sundaram and the Public Prosecutor were asked to appear after a few hours on the same date. When the matter was called again, it was represented by learned Public Prosecutor that the entire incident alleged was false. The counsel Mr.S.K. Sundaram did not appear before the learned judge. It was found by the learned Judge that the filing of the affidavit before him was with an oblique motive. When the matter was called again, it was represented by learned Public Prosecutor that the entire incident alleged was false. The counsel Mr.S.K. Sundaram did not appear before the learned judge. It was found by the learned Judge that the filing of the affidavit before him was with an oblique motive. It was under those circumstances, the learned Judge prohibited the alleged contemner from entering the High Court campus to discharge his duties as advocate clerk. 4. Against that order, he filed Writ Appeal No.731 of 1996. In that appeal, vakalath was filed which was accepted by Advocate Mr.S.K. Sundaram. It was purported to have been attested by Advocate Mr.Palanivelu. An affidavit, purported to have been attested by the same counsel, was also filed. 5. Before the leaned Judge, it was represented that Palanivelu, who is alleged to have attested the affidavit as well as the vakalath, has not really attested the same. There was some heated discussion regarding the same. As per order dated 20.8.1996. learned Judge ordered that an enquiry be made by the Registrar of this Court regarding the attestation in the affidavit as well as vakalath, and a report he filed. Before passing the order, the learned Judge also took note of the fact that advocate Mr.Palanivelu had denied his having attested either the vakalath or affidavit. 6. Pursuant to the direction of the learned Judge the Registrar held an enquiry. Advocate Mr.Palanivelu testified before the Registrar that the signature appearing in the vakalath and also in the affidavit filed in that case was not his signature and he also said he has not attested the same. 7. The report was placed before the learned Judge for necessary action. 8. Since the order dated 7. 1996 was pending in appeal before Division Bench, learned Judge further directed that the report of the Registrar be placed before the Bench for suitable action. 9. The writ appeal was disposed of by us as per judgment dated 20.9.1996, dismissing the same. 10. When the report was placed before us we thought that notice has to be issued to the alleged contemner and that is how A.V. Raman alias A.Venkatraman appeared before us and submitted his counter statement. 11. 9. The writ appeal was disposed of by us as per judgment dated 20.9.1996, dismissing the same. 10. When the report was placed before us we thought that notice has to be issued to the alleged contemner and that is how A.V. Raman alias A.Venkatraman appeared before us and submitted his counter statement. 11. The notice issued to the alleged contemner read as follows: "NOTICE W.A.No.731 of 1996 Whereas this Honourable Court hath directed issue of notice to you as to why you should not be asked to appear before this Honourable Court and explain as to why action should not be taken against you for criminal contempt regarding the attestation of affidavit and vakalath filed by you in W.A. No.731 of 1996 on the file of this Honourable court. Now take notice that you, namely, Thiru A.V. Raman alias A.Venkataraman is hereby directed to appear before the Honourable Division Bench consisting of the Honourable Mr.Justice S.S. Subramani and the Honourable Mr.Justice RSathasivam on Friday, the 1st day of November, 1996 at 11.00 a.m. to show cause why action should not be taken against you regarding the attestation of affidavit and vakalath filed by you in W.A. No.731 of 1996. Herein fail not. 12. In the counter-statement, the alleged contemner has stated that no case has been made out for proceeding with the matter and he also said that the only reason for issuing notice under Sec.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act is alleged forgery of signature in the vakalath and affidavit. This, according to him, will not come within the definition of criminal contempt. Instead, proceedings ought to have been initiated only under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It is further stated that proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act are not of criminal nature and the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code will not apply. It is further stated that the order to issue notice to appear, to answer the alleged criminal contempt is without jurisdiction. It is further said that while disposing of the writ appeal, there is no finding that the signature of Advocate Palanivelu was forged. So long as there is no such finding contempt proceedings cannot be proceeded with. He prayed that proceedings may be dropped. 13. It is further said that while disposing of the writ appeal, there is no finding that the signature of Advocate Palanivelu was forged. So long as there is no such finding contempt proceedings cannot be proceeded with. He prayed that proceedings may be dropped. 13. The only question that has to be considered is, whether the court was justified or correct in issuing notice to the alleged contemner, and whether grounds have been made out to punish him for alleged criminal contempt. .14. "Criminal Contempt" is defined under Sec.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. It means, "Publication by the words spoken or written, or by signs; or by visible representations or otherwise of any matter; or any other act whatsoever which (i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or (ii) prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner." 15. Along with this section, Secs.9 and 13 of the said act also will have to be taken into consideration. Sec.9 says that "Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as implying that any disobedience, breach, publication or other Act is punishable as contempt of Court which would not be so punishable apart from this Act." 16. It is thus clear that there would be no contempt apart from what is punishable under this Act. Court must not allow parties to use the provisions of this Act for enforcing their personal rights. For, contempt is an offence against the seat of justice, its administration and functioning of the judge qua Judge. Any contumacious act that lowers the dignity of the court is alone punishable as contempt. 17. Sec.13 of the said Act further says that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force no court shall impose a sentence under this Act for a contempt of court unless it is satisfied that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. A reading of the said section makes it clear that a trifling act cannot be magnified into contempt. A reading of the said section makes it clear that a trifling act cannot be magnified into contempt. It is below the dignity of court to take notice of insignificant acts and punish the doer of such Act. It reiterates the law, that contempt is not punishable where it does not substantially interfere with the due course of justice. .18. On going through the allegations made against the alleged contemner in the present case the only reason is that in the vakalath as well as affidavit filed in the writ appeal the signature of the Palanivelu is forged. There is no imputation that it is the alleged contemner who forged the signature. Even the enquiry report only says that Advocate Palanivelu said that the signature found in the vakalath and affidavit it not his. The statement was given in the absence of the alleged contemner and no opportunity was given to him to cross-examine the witness. Unless there is a finding that the signature was forged by the present contemner and the same scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of court or prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding, or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner, the proceedings cannot be continued. In what way, the so-called filing of the affidavit and vakalath has affected the due course of justice is not evident. It cannot be said that the alleged forgery scandalizes or tends to scandalize the authority of court, nor can it be said that it has interfered with the due course of any judicial proceeding. It cannot also be said that the alleged act interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other matter. At the most, the alleged contemner may be answerable for alleged forging of signature of Palanivelu. That is not a matter which could be taken note of under the Contempt of Courts Act. The so called act did not affect the disposal of the writ appeal in any manner and the same was also not brought to our notice at the time when the appeal was being heard. 19. That is not a matter which could be taken note of under the Contempt of Courts Act. The so called act did not affect the disposal of the writ appeal in any manner and the same was also not brought to our notice at the time when the appeal was being heard. 19. While disposing of the writ appeal there is no finding that the vakalath filed by Mr.S.K. Sundaram and the affidavit are in any way defective due to lack of attestation. The writ appeal was disposed of on merits and there was no observation in the judgment of the writ appeal that the appellant therein is liable to be proceeded with for contempt. 20. In proceedings for initiating action for criminal contempt, the court must be satisfied whether the act complained of was calculated to obstruct or had an intrinsic tendency to interfere with the course of justice and due administration of law. The standard of proof required to establish the charge of criminal contempt is the same as in any other criminal proceeding. It.was held in Debabrata v. State, A.I.R. 1969 S.C.189 thus: A question whether there is contempt of court or not is a serious one. The court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. It behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumancious, conduct not explainable otherwise arises that the contemner must be punished. It must be realised that our system of courts often results in delay of one kind or another, in the matter of transmission of orders of the superior courts. The remedy for it is reform and punishment departmen-tally. Punishment under the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one’s duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged. [Italics supplied] 21. Punishment under the law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one’s duty and in defiance of authority. To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged. [Italics supplied] 21. It was held in Naraindas v. Government of Madhya Pradesh, (1975)3 S.C.C. 31 , that what the court has to consider for the purpose of determining whether any of these statements constitutes contempt of court is, whether these statements interfere or have a tendency to interfere with the due course of the appeal or the writ petition by creating prejudice against the appellant which would affect the fair hearing and disposal of the appeal or the writ petition. If a wrong or misleading statement is deliberately and wilfully made by a party to a litigation with a view to obtain a favourable order, it would prejudice or interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding and thus amount to contempt of court. But that must be established. We do not think that these ingredients under that section have been proved in this case. 22. In Hargovind Dayal v. G.N. Verma, A.I.R. 1977 S. C. 1334, it was held that criminal contempt cannot be confused with contumacious conduct. 23. Since the Act is exhaustive in so far as contempt of courts are concerned, unless we are satisfied that the ingredients of Sec.2(c) of the said Act have bene made out, we do not think, we can proceed against the alleged contemner. In this case, we are satisfied that those ingredients have not been made out. 24. In the result, we discharge the notice by dropping further proceedings in this case. 25. Even though we have discharged the notice and dropped further proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, we cannot close our eyes in respect of the forgery, that has taken place. If such fraudulent acts are allowed, the very existence of the Institution will be in peril. Hence, we direct the Registrar of this Court to file necessary complaint before the concerned Police Officer, to make an investigation into the case and thereafter ask him to proceed in accordance with law. The statement given by Advocate Mr.Palanivelu will also be sent to the concerned Police Officer. Hence, we direct the Registrar of this Court to file necessary complaint before the concerned Police Officer, to make an investigation into the case and thereafter ask him to proceed in accordance with law. The statement given by Advocate Mr.Palanivelu will also be sent to the concerned Police Officer. The vakalath and affidavit in which the forged signatures are affixed, will be kept in safe custody, and the same will be handed over to the concerned Police Officer for necessary action.