1 rma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. SUO MOTU CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 135 OF 2009 Nyayalay Karmachari Anne Nyayadhish Hitkari Sangh, Swar Gate, Pune .. Petitioner V/s. Prakash Kakubhai Rangwala and Anr .. Respondent Mr. Prakash Kakubhai Rangwala, Respondent No. 1 in – person. Mrs. Geeta Shastri, AGP for respondent no. 2. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 21st January, 2010 P.C.: 1. This Suo Motu Contempt Petition has been registered on the basis of the letter dated 15.10.2007 addressed by respondent no. 1 to the Hon’ble The Chief Justice of this Court. In the concluding part of this 16 pages letter, respondent no. 1 stated as under : “It is learnt Rs. 45,00,000/- (RUPEES FOURTY FIVE LACS) been given by the Respondents to presiding officer Shri. A.M. KHANWILKAR – through Advocate Shri. Jokim Rais (WHO IS KNOWN FOR SUCH WORK) to Bluntly connived CONSPIRACY/SCANDALIZE/FRAUD OF USERPED THE 20’ FEET VIDE, App. 235’ FEET LONG MORE THAN 60 YEARS 5.smwp135-09 2 OLD NALA.” The letter concluded with a request to consider the petition strictly on merits by calling the say of BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION who are the Respondents under the intimation to the writer and oblige. The letter also stated, “If you fail to do so within 15 days from the receipt of my complaint, then to preserve purity of the Administration of Justice, these facts will be constrained to put up with more authentic evidence before Hon’ble Shri. K.G. Balakrishnan, The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and Chairman of National Judicial Council.” 2. On issuance of notice, respondent no. 1 appeared on 10.01.2009 and stated that he had engaged an Advocate and requested for some time. He also complained that he was not given entire set of papers and therefore, the Registry was directed to give necessary papers to respondent no. 1, if not given so far, within a period of one week from today, so as to enable him to defend the proceedings. When the petition was called out before us on 06.01.2010, respondent no. 1 appeared as a party in -person and complained that a copy of his letter referred to herein above and the petition memo was not received by him. The same was 5.smwp135-09 3 supplied to him on the very same day so as to enable him to file his affidavit in reply for which two weeks time was granted. 3. Respondent No. 1 has filed his affidavit in reply on 19.01.2010. It is evident that respondent no.1 has not disclosed the source of his knowledge that Advocate Shri. Jokim Rais had paid an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- either in person or through someone else to the Hon’ble Judge. In his affidavit, respondent no.1 stated that he had addressed a letter dated 09.01.2009 to the Hon’ble The Chief Justice of this Court complaining that the Hon’ble Shri. Justice A.M. Khanvilkar had favoured the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24 of 2009 and the petitioner therein was Shri. Satish Vithal Venkappa Shetty to whom respondent no. 1 called as a bootlegger. Further grievance stated in the affidavit in reply before us is that despite the caveat filed by him on 11.12.2008, as envisaged under section 148- A of the C.P.C ( it was lodged under Stamp No. 5002 of 2008 ), an exparte order came to be passed in Writ Petition No. 24 of 2009 on 07.01.2009 without issuing notice to him i.e respondent no. 1 who was the sole respondent in the said Petition. 4. We called for the papers in Civil Writ Petition No. 24 of 2009 which came to be filed on the Appellate Side of this Court against the 5.smwp135-09 4 interlocutory order passed by the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. The Farad in Writ Petition No. 24 of 2009 shows that at 03.00 p.m. on 07.01.2009, the learned Advocate for the petitioner produced the papers for urgent orders and the petition was directed to be listed on 16.01.2009. The interim protection granted by the lower Court was directed to be continued till 16.01.2009. On 17.01.2009, the present respondent no. 1 appeared as a party in person in Writ Petition No. 24 of 2009 and after hearing the parties, the Petition was allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Small Causes Court below Ex. 23. The Farad did not indicate about the registration of caveat filed by respondent no. 1 under Stamp No. 5002 of 2008. 5. In his oral arguments in defence in this Contempt Petition, respondent no. 1 submitted that he had visited Pune. As per him, the organization called Nyayalay Karmachari Anne Nyayadhish Hitkari Sangh, Swar Gate, Pune does not exist and even otherwise, the said organization has not indicated as to how it received a copy of his letter dated 15.10.2007 addressed to the Hon’ble The Chief Justice of this Court. Respondent No. 1, therefore, prayed for dismissal of this Contempt Petition stating that the complainant is a 5.smwp135-09 5 fake and bogus organization and this Court should refrain from taking action against him in this Contempt Petition. 6. We have seen the record. It is not a Contempt Petition based on the complaint or representation by Nyayalay Karmachari Anne Nyayadhish Hitkari Sangh, Swar Gate, Pune but this is a Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Petition registered pursuant to the decision taken by the Administrative Committee and pursuant to the oder passed by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice and it has been shown as a Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Petition. The name of Nyayalay Karmachari Anne Nyayadhish Hitkari Sangh, Swar Gate, Pune as the Petitioner has been erroneously shown. It is a lapse on the part of the registry. Hence, the defence taken by Respondent No. 1 is untenable and is hereby discarded. 7. We had, therefore, called upon respondent no. 1 to place before us any material in support of his allegation that a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- was paid to the Hon’ble Judge by the above mentioned Advocate either in person or through anybody else. The amended Contempt of Courts Act provides for truth as the defence and respondent no. 1 has not placed any material in support of his knowledge on the basis of which he has made allegations against 5.smwp135-09 6 the learned Judge of this Court. Respondent No. 1 reiterated that whatever he has stated in the affidavit is his reply and he had nothing further to add. He also stated that he would commit suicide if punished in this petition. 8. As per section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, any publication whether by words, spoken or written or by any manner, which scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court, or interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner, amounts to criminal contempt punishable under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 9. No doubt, the allegations made by respondent No. 1 in his letter dated 15.10.2007 and against the learned Judge of this Court are reckless and they tend to scandalize the Court as well as tend to interfere with the administration of justice. Such allegations lower the authority of the Court and causes prejudice to the Court in due course of judicial proceedings. We are satisfied that the due procedure in registering the Criminal Contempt as prescribed under the Act as well as the Rules framed by this Court was followed. We hold that respondent no. 1 5.smwp135-09 7 is guilty of an act of criminal contempt within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on account of his allegations against the learned Judge of this Court and as set out in his letter dated 15.10.2007 addressed to the Hon’ble The Chief Justice. 10.We have heard respondent no.1 on the quantum of sentence. He did not show any remorse nor submitted an apology for the baseless and fabricated allegations set out by him in his letter dated 15.10.2007. On the other hand, he stated before us that he is willing to face the consequences of law and he will continue to fight for justice. Respondent no. 1, therefore, does not get the benefit of the explanation below the proviso to sub-section 1 of section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The record placed before us also indicates that respondent no. 1 was punished for criminal contempt in Criminal Reference No. 5 of 2004 as per the order dated 19.10.2007 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. An arrest warrant was directed to be issued against him as per the order dated 12.06.2008 passed in the said proceedings. As per section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the contemnor may be punished with simple imprisonment for 5.smwp135-09 8 a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. Having regard to the totality of circumstances in this case and the unrepentant behaviour of respondent no. 1 as well as his past record, we sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer further S.I. for 15 days. 11.The Contempt petition is accordingly allowed. The Registry to take appropriate steps. 12.At this stage, respondent no. 1 made an oral application for stay to the operation of this order. 13.The oral application is granted and the order of sentence is suspended for a period of ten weeks from today. However, on the expiry of ten weeks, if the Registry does not receive any order of stay from the Apex Court, at the behest of this Court, it shall issue a warrant against him. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.] 5.smwp135-09 9 5.smwp135-09