HIGH CbURT OF cHHAmseARH AT BILAsPUR DB: HON‘BLE MRVDHIR‘END'gK‘MIsHRA AND HON'BLE MR, DILIP RAosAHEB DEsHMUKH, JJ CONTEMPT PE'FITIONJCRIMINAQNO. O3 OF 2007 Befween. In referenée (State of Chhdfi'isgarh) & ‘ Nandu Prasa'd Sni h ba’ba: FOR CONSIDN ERATIO Sdl- Dhirendra Mishra Judge k HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR DESHMUH ‘ Sdl - ix Di“? Raosaheb Deshmukh: Judge Sd/- DHIRENDRA WSI-mA Judge W E2006 ; ‘ HIGH ,COURT OF CHHAT‘HSGARH' AT BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE MR. DHIRENDRA MISHRA AND HON'BLE MR. DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH, JJ CONTEMPT PEVITION {CRIMINAL} NO. 03 OF 2007 BeMean. In reference (State of Chha'l'fisgarh) & Nandu Prasad Soni S/o La‘re Ramsugnr Soni R/o Ring Road, Namnakala, Ambikapur, Dis’rf. Surguja (CG) Present Confemnor is presen’r in perSOn. Mr. UNS Deo, learned Govt. Advoccn‘e for The Sfa‘re. ORDER (Passed on W Rxrch, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J The contemnor/respondenf addressed a complain? ’ro Hié - 1' Excellencyv the Governor of Chhattisgarh, contents of which are per s contemptuous. Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Law & -‘ Legislai‘ive Affairs forwarded the said complainf for appropriafe action to the Registrar General, High Court of Chhat’risgarh, 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 w: e: several documen‘rs including The order- da’red 2'” January, 2006 passed in WP No.2104/01. However, no affidaviT in supporT of The reply was filed. 3. He again submif‘red an applicafion on 25.8.2007 and prayed for deciding 1’he ma‘Her‘ on The basis of his reply da’red 15*‘1 June, 2007 as he is unable ’ro engage priva're counsel and he also alleged ’rhaf The advocaTes provided To him Through Legal Aid are noT willing To conTesT his case. 4. Referring to his reply da+ed 15*“ June, 2007 and 25“ August, 2007, vide his applicaTion daTed 12*l1.0cTober, 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. Since Thevcharge 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 ChhaTTisgarh by The conTemnor is in relaTion To WP No.2104/01, disposed of by This CourT on 2"d January, 2006. From perusal of The order of This CourT iT appears ThaT The conTemnor applied for appoinTmenT on The posT of Loader, w n—nw Soufh Easfern Cem‘ml Coalfields Lfd. In ‘rhe year 1984, however, he was nbf selecfed. Aggrieved by fhe above order, ’rhe confemnor filed wri‘r pe’rifion in ‘rhe year 2001. The pe’riTion was dismissed by ’rhisCour? with an observafion Tha’r ‘rhe peti‘rioner had no? acquired any right af ‘ihe firs’r ins’rance ifself as he was rejec’red by ’rhe selecfion commii‘fee for appointment Even o’rherwise, ’rhe pefi‘rion is 1'ime barred as ’rhe pefi’rioner did no’r Take any s’reps for more than 16 years. 8. In The complaint, fhe confemnor has made following impufa’rions agains’r This Cour'r: s ~o WWWQEHmw-QQWWdgswmgmaiW W,Ehaaw£iaéi§ai%zhm%maniig}m%? o aswai’ra'éhémmmmm? o Wswvmw%mw€rarw?mwa%wssw WW$WWW§1 o W§€iiiiréi Wmw%@imw%mm $W§H§§Qi§,ammf€im=mw@u$%m o wasnitmwmw$amwma€r§ ma€rwa?rW%? 9. In his defence, ’rhe con’remnor has sfa’red ThaT he has received ’rhe copy of complain? sen'r by him fo 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. 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 framed 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 l '\ r’r rr/r Iau y u J x ' , ww ’i M Wm d”. M_% / k f @3 / did no? even care ’ro file affidavi‘r in supporT of his irepiy. He has been Throughou‘r unrepen’ran’r. In his subsequen’r appIicaTions, he has made allegah‘ons agains’r his own counsel provided 1'o him Through Legal Aid That They were counseling him 'ro Tender apology wi‘rhou’r his faul’r. He has furfher Tried ’ro justify his scandalous remarks by referring ’ro cer’rain documenTs in his possession ’ro establish Tha’r fhe above documen‘rs were no? considered while his pefh‘ion was dismissed. His affifude 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 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 complaint. 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 \ '\ v I mr—V'rQrr—Vr rrJ-Ltt—‘I M M / ,éQ as defined in Secfion 2(c) of ’rhe Com‘empf of Coum‘s Ac? is esfablished, proof of mans rea would nof be necessary. 13. We have‘ alr'eady hel'd Tha‘l‘ 1'he impu’ra’rions made by fhe confemnor‘ in ‘rhe complainf, on The_ face of if, are Scandalous in na’rur‘e, fhe com‘emnor‘ remained unrepen‘ranf fhr'oughou‘l' and doggedly Took The s’rand ’rha’r he s’rands by ‘rhe allegafions. In These circumsfances, we hold' The confemnor guiHy of willful confempf of This CourT, and senTence him To civil imprisonmenT of one week. Sdl- ‘- N Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh" Dhirendra Mishra Judge i ~» i Sd/- Judge LaTer' on; The conTemnor' be Taken inTo cusTody forThwiTh. WarronT of commiTTmenT To The prison be prepared as per rules, and The conTemnor be senT To jaii To undergo The senTence imposed on him. i DMENDRA NHSI-mA Judge Maniw‘w Sd/- i ’ Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ii i: .r-, VV” J‘rcwi,