DEEPAK KUMAR PRAHLADKA v. CHIEF JUSTICE PRABHA SHANKER MISHRA AND ANR

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 835

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL, ARUN KUMAR

Case summary

DEEPAK KUMAR PRAHLADKA v. CHIEF JUSTICE PRABHA SHANKER MISHRA AND ANR.pdf

Judgment 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 ofcontempt and passing an order of imprisonment against him he is entitled to a notice and opportunity of hearing. Petition for contempt ofcourt-Held, could not be heard and disposed ofby the very same Judges ofthe High Court who were respondents therein- Practice and Procedure. A Division Bench ofthe 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 offiling 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 the appellant u/s 340 ofthe Code ofCriminal 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 oflaw and 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 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 835 fl 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 ofinsinuations against the Judges therein were contemptuous; but howsoe\'er glaring the facts ofthe case may be, the appellant was entitled to a notice and an opportunity before holding him guilty ofcontempt 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. [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 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 the improvement in the approach of the appellant in these years, while maintaining dismissal ofthe 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. ] 837 Y. K. SABHARWAL, J.

These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 5th May, 1998, holding the appellant guilty ofcontempt ofcourt 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 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 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 ofsuo motu contempt notice to the appellant noticing in their order that the newspaper reports based on the statement of the appellant were primafacie contemptuous. By the said order the appellant was also directed to file a supplementary affidavit giving details of his educational qualifications in justification ofhis claim ofbeing a law researcher, to furnish details of the contempt application which he has allegedly made 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 ne 1 but should also appear to have been done. It 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. 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 notice and grant of opportunity to the appellant before deciding whether·he is guilty ofcontempt. 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 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 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 of the two contempt petitions, we set aside the impugned judgment and order convicting the appellant for contempt ofcourt 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.