Criminal Appeal No 43 of 1975
From the Judgment and Order dated 9 1 1973 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No 68172
V section Desai P H Parekh C B Singh M Mudgol B L Verma and JC Rajani for the Appellants
637 M N Shroff for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI J
This is an appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act hereinafter called the Act against an order of the High Court of Bombay convicting the appellants for a Civil Contempt and sentencing them to one month s simple imprisonment
The facts of the case have been fully detailed by the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again
It appears that Respondent No 1 had given a loan of Rs 50000 to the appellants on certain conditions
Somehow or other the loan could not be paid by the appellants as a result of which Respondent No 1 filed a complaint under section 420 IPC against the appellants
While the complaint was pending before the Court of the Magistrate the parties entered into a compromise on 22 7 1971 under which the appellants undertook to pay the loan of Rs 50000 with simple interest  12 per annum on or before 21 7 1972
An application was filed before the Court for allowing the parties to compound the case and acquit the accused
The Court after hearing the parties passed the following order The accused given an undertaking to the court that he shall repay the sum of Rs 50000 to the complainant on or before 21 7 1972 with interest as mentioned on the reverse
In view of the undertaking I permit the compromise and acquit the accused
It is obvious therefore that the Court permitted the parties to compound the case only because of the undertaking given by the appellants
Thereafter it appears that the undertaking was violated and the amount of loan was not paid to the Respondent No 1 at all
The respondent therefore moved the High Court for taking action for contempt of Court against the appellants as a result of which the present proceedings were taken against them
The High Court came to the conclusion that the appellants had committed a wilful disobedience of the undertaking given to the Court and were therefore guilty of civil contempt as defined in section 2b of the Act
Hence this appeal before us
Mr V section Desai appearing in support of the appeal has raised two short points before us
He has submitted that there is no doubt that the appellants had violated the undertaking but in the circumstances it cannot be said that the appellants had committed a wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court
So far as this point is concerned we fully agree with the High Court
In the circumstances the appellants undoubtedly committed wilful disobedience of the order of the court 638 by committing a serious breach of the undertaking given to the Court on the basis of which alone the appellants had been acquitted
For these reasons the first contention put forward by Mr Desai is overruled
It is then contended that under section 123 normally the sentence that should be given to an offender who is found guilty of civil contempt is fine and not imprisonment which should be given only where the Court is satisfied that ends of justice require the imposition of such a sentence
In our opinion this contention of learned counsel for the appellants is well founded and must prevail
Sub section 3 of section 12 reads thus  Notwithstanding anything contained in this section where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt the Court if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit
A close and careful interpretation of the extracted section leaves no room for doubt that the Legislature intended that a sentence of fine alone should be imposed in normal circumstances
The statute however confers special power on the Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment if it think that ends of justice so require
Thus before a Court passes the extreme sentence of imprisonment it must give special reasons after a proper application of its mind that a sentence of imprisonment alone is called for in a particular situation Thus the sentence of imprisonment is an exception while sentence of fine is the rule
Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case we do not find any special reason why the appellants should be sent to jail by sentencing them to imprisonment
Furthermore respondent No 1 before us despite service has not appeared to support the sentence given by the High Court
Having regard to these circumstances therefore we are satisfied that the present case squarely falls in the first part of section 123 and a sentence of fine alone should have been given by the High Court
We therefore allow this appeal to this extent that the sentence of imprisonment passed by the High Court is set aside and instead the appellants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 1000 each
In case of default 15 days simple imprisonment
Four weeks time to pay the fine
PBR Appeal allowed in part


Summary:
Respondent No 1 filed a complaint under section 420 IPC against the appellants alleging that a loan taken by them from him had not been repaid
While the complaint was pending before a Magistrate the parties entered into a compromise under which the appellants undertook to repay the loan before a stipulated date
The Magistrate accordingly allowed the parties to compound the case
When the appellants failed to repay the loan in accordance with the undertaking given before the Magistrate the respondent moved the High Court for taking action against the appellants for contempt of court
On the view that the appellants had committed a willful disobedience of the undertaking the High Court held that they were guilty of civil contempt and sentenced them to one month s simple imprisonment
Allowing the appeal in part  HELD 1
The appellants had committed willful disobedience of the court of the Magistrate by committing serious breach of the undertaking given to it on the basis of which alone they had been acquitted
The High Court was therefore right in holding that the appellants were guilty of civil contempt under section 2b of the Contempt of Courts Act
638 A 2
Having regard to the circumstances of the case the present case falls within the first part of section 123 of the Act and a sentence of fine alone should have been awarded by the High Court
By enacting the section the legislature intended that a sentence of fine alone should be imposed in normal circumstances
Special power is however conferred on the court to pass a sentence of imprisonment if it thought that ends of justice so required
Therefore before a court passed a sentence of imprisonment it must give special reasons for passing such a sentence
638 G In the present case there are no special reasons why the appellants should be sent to jail