Crl. Cont. Ref. No.02/2010 Page 1 of 8 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2010 + CRL. C. REF. 2/2010 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION ......Petitioner Versus VIMAL SINGH ……Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case :- For The Petitioner : Mr Sumit Arora, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr Sumeet Verma, Advocate for contemnor. Mr Vikas Pahwa, Advocate for CBI. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (Oral) 1. An application had been filed before Sh. Girish Kathpalia, Addl. Sessions Judge, Special Judge (NDPS) District North, Delhi numbered as M-3/09 entitled CBI Vs. Vimal Singh. The application was dated 31.09.2009 and had been filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI in the case entitled CBI Vs. Haji Gul Khan & Anr. which was pending before that court at that time. By virtue of the said application filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, appropriate Crl. Cont. Ref. No.02/2010 Page 2 of 8 action was sought against the respondent (Vimal Singh), in view of the allegations that he had attempted to offer illegal gratification to the said Special Public Prosecutor. 2. Thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 31.07.2009 directed the respondent Vimal Singh to show cause as to why appropriate contempt proceedings be not referred against him to this court. Subsequently, a reply was filed on 29.09.2009 and, in view of the stand taken by the respondent, the reply filed by the accused Abdullah in the case entitled CBI Vs. Haji Gul Khan & Anr. was also taken on record. The defence counsel was also heard in view of the contents of the reply of the respondent. 3. Thereafter the learned Additional Sessions Judge by a detailed order dated 29.03.2010 allowed the application of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and came to the prima facie conclusion that the respondent (Vimal Singh) was guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Consequently, invoking Section 15 (2) of the said Act, a reference was separately made to this court for proceeding further against the respondent and for award of appropriate punishment under Section 12 thereof. The matter was listed before the learned Single Judge and was numbered as CCP (REF.) 01/2010 on 26.04.2010. The learned Single Judge issued notice to the contemnor without process fee returnable on 02.06.2010. However, in the meantime, since criminal contempt matters were to be listed before the Division Bench, the matter was put up by the registry on 30.04.2010 Crl. Cont. Ref. No.02/2010 Page 3 of 8 before the learned Single Judge for appropriate orders. Consequently, on 30.04.2010 itself, the learned Single Judge directed that the matter be registered as Criminal Contempt Petition (Reference) and be listed before the Division Bench and directed that the cause title would be “Court on its Own Motion Vs. Sh. Vimal Singh”. That is how this matter has come up before us. 4. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the action initiated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are recorded in the detailed order dated 29.03.2010 itself. The same are reproduced hereunder: “2. Briefly stated, in the main case two accused persons namely Hazi Gul Khan and Abdullah were facing trial for offence under Section 21 NDPS Act for being found in possession of commercial quantity of heroin. The trial was pending for past about 9 ½ years with both the accused in judicial custody all through; out of desperation of the accused persons, on 24.07.09 the learned defence counsel mooted a proposal for making the accused persons plead guilty and for leniency in sentence; learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that whatever according to merits is called for, could be done. After the matter was adjourned for final arguments, outside the court room CBI Special Public Prosecutor was approached by the respondent, who had been working as pairokar of accused persons. The respondent asked the learned Special Public Prosecutor about his consideration in the matter of sentence and naturally learned Special Public Prosecutor was shocked and reprimanded the respondent. Thereafter, the present application was moved. 3. On the next date 31.07.09 when the present application was moved, respondent was present inside the court room and his statement on oath only to the extent of his particulars was recorded; detailed statement of respondent was not taken on the same day so that he may be given Crl. Cont. Ref. No.02/2010 Page 4 of 8 reasonable opportunity to defend himself. As described in order dated 31.07.09, respondent tried to conceal his address, but while he was locating his expired driving licence, I noticed his current driving licence and immediately seized the same alongwith his PAN card in order to ensure his appearance in further proceedings. 4. At the same time, on 31.07.09 a detailed statement without oath was made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor explaining the circumstances as described above. 5. Since the complaint of learned Special Public Prosecutor also prima facie disclosed offence under Section 214 IPC, CBI was directed to file appropriate complaint before the court of competent jurisdiction. 6. In his reply, the respondent Vimal Singh took a stand that being friend of Abdullah, he was looking after the main trial as pairokar; that it is the counsel of accused Abdullah who approached him and asked him to arrange Rs.25,000/- for the public prosecutor and Rs.15,000/- for the defence counsel himself; that accused Abdullah asked him to verify this demand from learned public prosecutor; and that he simply verified the said demand from learned Special Public Prosecutor, who refused having demanded any money. 7. In his reply accused Abdullah took a stand that it is the respondent Vimal Singh who told the accused that he could manage the CBI people for Rs.30,000/- but accused Abdullah rejected the offer. Accused Abdullah denied that the respondent had contacted him to inform that Rs.25,000/- for prosecutor and Rs.15,000/- for the defence counsel had been demanded by learned counsel for accused. 8. In view of serious allegations of the respondent that it is learned defence counsel who had conveyed the demand, I also considered appropriate to hear the comments of learned defence counsel. Sh. Jitender Sethi, learned defence counsel stated that he had no comments except that stand taken by the respondent is false Crl. Cont. Ref. No.02/2010 Page 5 of 8 and intended to malign him. 9. During arguments learned counsel for respondent submitted that no money transaction actually took place and the respondent had simply tried to confirm the demand conveyed by learned defence counsel with no self interest. 10. I find absolutely no merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent. Merely because no money transaction actually took place, it cannot be said that the respondent did not try to interfere in the administration of justice. In my considered view, even an offer of bribe to the prosecutor or any other person involved in the trial is a matter of grave contempt. 11. I also find it meritless to say that the respondent had no self interest in this case. It is not unknown that often in the name of prosecutors money is demanded from accused and the same is a source of earning, especially for those persons who were once co prisoners with the accused and subsequently out on bail or otherwise acquitted. As described above, accused Abdullah specifically denied having requested the respondent to confirm the demand from learned Special Public Prosecutor; rather stand of accused Abdullah is that it is the respondent who came to him with an offer to fix CBI people. 12. Besides, keeping in mind the respectable standing of learned defence counsel Sh. Jitender Sethi, Advocate at bar I find it not possible to believe that it is he who would have made a demand of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Special Public Prosecutor. 13. Act of making an offer of illegal gratification to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, with which the respondent has been charged, not only tends to lower the authority of court but also tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings as well as administration of justice, falling within the ambit of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act. Crl. Cont. Ref. No.02/2010 Page 6 of 8 14. Even if the stand of respondent is taken on its face value, the same itself amounts to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act as he tried to interfere in the administration of justice by even confirming the demand from learned Special Public Prosecutor, which was with the aim to further the process of an illegal demand. 15. In view of above discussion, application of CBI dated 31.07.09 is allowed and respondent is prima facie held guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act. Under Section 15(2) of the Act, reference is being separately made to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for proceeding further against the respondent and award of appropriate punishment under Section 12 thereof.” 5. It is also pertinent to note that by an order dated 31.07.2009 the learned Additional Sessions Judge had already come to the prima facie conclusion that the events narrated above disclosed the commission of an offence under Section 214 of the Indian Penal Code regarding the offer of gratification allegedly made by the respondent Sh. Vimal Singh in consideration of the learned Special Public Prosecutor screening the accused Abdullah from legal punishment. It was also noted in the said order dated 31.07.2009 that the offence under Section 214 of the Indian Penal Code was non-cognizable and was triable by the Magistrate of the First Class. Consequently, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the said order directed the CBI to file an appropriate complaint before the court of competent jurisdiction immediately. It was also clarified that the learned Magistrate before whom the alleged complaint is filed would look into the matter independently and without considering the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the said order dated Crl. Cont. Ref. No.02/2010 Page 7 of 8 31.07.2009 and in accordance with law. 6. We are now informed by the learned counsel appearing for the CBI that pursuant to the said direction a CBI case numbered RC 1/2000, EOU-V-New Delhi has been registered. Thereafter, the matter has been investigated under Section 155 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 214 of the Indian Penal Code after taking orders from Sh. Tarun Yogesh, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi by virtue of his order dated 10.09.2009. The learned counsel for the CBI further informed us that after due investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 16.07.2010 and that the case is at the summoning stage and non-bailable warrants had been issued against the respondent/accused Vimal Singh on 07.10.2010. The next date fixed in the matter before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate also happens to be today i.e. 08.12.2010. 7. We have heard counsel for the parties and we are of the view that Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has to be kept in mind before any further steps are taken in this reference. Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as under: “10. Power of High Court to punish contempt's of subordinate courts - Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempt's of courts subordinate to it and it has and exercise in respect of contempt's of itself. Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it Crl. Cont. Ref. No.02/2010 Page 8 of 8 where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 8. The proviso to the above Section makes it clear that High Court shall not take cognizance of the contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The very same facts which form the basis of the contempt reference also constitute the ingredients of the alleged offence punishable under Section 214 of the Indian Penal Code and in respect of which, as noted above, the CBI has already registered a case, an investigation has been concluded, the charge sheet has been filed and the matter is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. In these circumstances the proviso to Section 10 would clearly come into play and, therefore, this court would be barred from taking cognizance of the contempt alleged to have been committed in the present case. 7. Consequently, cognizance of the contempt alleged in the present case cannot be taken by this court. The reference is accordingly answered and disposed of. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MANMOHAN SINGH, J DECEMBER 08, 2010 dp