Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 98 (CHH)

IN REFERENCE (STATE OF CG. ) v. NANDU PRASAD SONI

2009-03-17

D.R.DESHMUKH, DHIRENDRA MISHRA

body2009
ORDER As per Hon 'hie Shri Dhirendra Mishra, J. : 1. The contemnor/respondent addressed a complaint to His Excellency the Governor of Chhattisgarh, contents of which are per se contemptuous. Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs forwarded the said complaint for appropriate action to the Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh, on the basis of which the instant contempt proceeding was registered. 2. Show-cause notice was issued to the contemnor. The contemnor appeared in person and submitted that he is not in a position to engage counsel, whereupon counsel was provided to him through Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Aid Committee. He submitted his reply on 15.6.2007 and denied having committed any contempt and further stated that he had drawn attention of the Court towards the facts, which were not considered, and reiterated his grievances in reference to the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 2104/01, which was filed by him and dismissed by this Court on merits. Along with his reply he also filed several documents including the order dated 2nd January, 2006 passed in WP No.21 04/0 1. However, no affidavit in support of the reply was filed. 3. He again submitted an application on 25.8.2007 and prayed for deciding the matter on the basis of his reply dated 15th June, 2007 as he is unable to engage private counsel and he also alleged that the advocates provided to him through Legal Aid are not willing to contest his case. 4. Referring to his reply dated 15th June, 2007 and 25th August, 2007, vide his application dated 1th October, 2007, he again prayed for deciding this matter and stated that the counsel provided to him is pressurizing him to tender apology, though he has not committed any contempt. 5. None of the reply/applications filed by the contemnor is supported by his affidavit. On 27.11.2008 the contemnor was allowed further time of two months to file appropriate reply alongwith affidavit to the show-cause notice. However, he did not file reply. On 6.2.2009 charge was framed. The contemnor denied the charge and prayed for enquiry, and the matter was fixed on 16.3 .2009 for evidence. 6. Shri UNS Deo, learned Govt. Advocate submits that contents of the complaint by the contemnor to His Excellency-the Governor of Chhattisgarh are per se scandalous in nature and the same lowers the authority of the Court. The contemnor denied the charge and prayed for enquiry, and the matter was fixed on 16.3 .2009 for evidence. 6. Shri UNS Deo, learned Govt. Advocate submits that contents of the complaint by the contemnor to His Excellency-the Governor of Chhattisgarh are per se scandalous in nature and the same lowers the authority of the Court. Since the charge is based on documentary evidence and the contemnor has not denied the authorship of the complaint, or that he sent the same to His Excellency-the Governor in his reply, no evidence would be necessary to prove the charge. The contemnor examined himself in his defence and further submitted that he does not intend to examine any other witness. He also submitted that he does not need any legal assistance. 7. The complaint to His Excellency-the Governor of Chattisgarh by the contemnor is in relation to WP No.21 04/0 1, disposed of by this Court on 2nd January, 2006. From perusal of the order of this Court it appears that the contemnor applied for appointment on the post of Loader, South Eastern Central Coalfields Ltd. In the year 1984, however, he was not selected. Aggrieved by the above order, the contemnor filed writ petition in the year 200 1. The petition was dismissed by this Court with an observation that the petitioner had not acquired any right at the first instance itself as he was rejected by the selection committee for appointment. Even otherwise, the petition is time barred as the petitioner did not take any steps for more than 16 years. 8. In the complaint, the contemnor has made following imputations against, this Court: 9. In his defence, the contemnor has stated that he has received the copy of complaint sent by him to His Excellency-the Governor along with notice of the High Court. The contemnor has also admitted that he was author of the said complaint and he had sent the same with his own signature to His Excellency-the Governor. However, he has further stated that he did not intend any disrespect to, or contempt of the High Court and he has not committed any contempt. He has no more special explanation to offer to the particulars of the complaint, which has been reproduced in the charge, however, he has suffered injustice and prays for justice. The comments about the judiciary are true. He has no more special explanation to offer to the particulars of the complaint, which has been reproduced in the charge, however, he has suffered injustice and prays for justice. The comments about the judiciary are true. The contemnor also filed documents as per list in proof of his allegations. 10. From perusal of the allegations, on the basis of which charge was funned against the contemnor, it is manifestly clear that the allegations are per se scandalous in nature and the same lowers the authority of the Court. In reply to the show cause notice, the contemnor has not denied that he himself sent the complaint to His Excellency-the Governor. He did not even care to file affidavit in support of his reply. He has been throughout unrepentant. In his subsequent applications, he has made allegations against his own counsel provided to him through Legal Aid that they were counseling him to tender apology without his fault. He has further tried to justify his scandalous remarks by referring to certain documents in his possession to establish that the above documents were not considered while his petition was dismissed. His attitude was unrepentant and defiant throughout. 11. The contemnor has tried to demonstrate through his demeanor that he is a poor person, he has been fighting against the injustices done to him by the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in the matters of his appointment; he had been fighting for justice in this Court since long and is a victim at the hands of custodians of law. It appears that the contemnor carries a wrong notion that by such postures and behaviour, he can extract a favourable order from the Court. Such behaviour and utterances are on the increase, it undermines the prestige and dignity of the Court and affects the working of the Court, as it vitiates the smooth atmosphere in which the Court functions. The conduct of the contemnor has a direct impact upon the independence, dignity and decorum of the Court. 12. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that condoning such I inorderly and reckless behaviour on the part of the contemnor would give wrong signals to the public at large. The conduct of the contemnor has a direct impact upon the independence, dignity and decorum of the Court. 12. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that condoning such I inorderly and reckless behaviour on the part of the contemnor would give wrong signals to the public at large. Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which defines criminal contempt, even a tendency to scandalize the court or tendency to lower the authority of the Court or tendency to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice in any manner, or to challenge the authority or majesty of the justice, would be a criminal contempt. Mens rea is not an essential ingredient. All that Court has to consider is the nature and effect of the imputation, the occasion for making the imputations and whether the contemnor knew about the effect of such imputations. Where the criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act is established, proof of mens rea would not be necessary. 13. We have already held that the imputations made by the contemnor in the complaint, on the face of it, are scandalous in nature, the contemnor remained unrepentant throughout and doggedly took the stand that he stands by the allegations. In these circumstances, we hold the contemnor guilty of willful contempt of this Court, and sentence him to civil imprisonment of one week. Later on : The contemnor be taken into custody forthwith. Warrant of commitment to the prison be prepared as per rules, and the contemnor be sent to jail to undergo the sentence imposed on him. Contemnor Punished.