[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 227

R.S. SUJATHA v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 9579 of 2003)

NOVEMBER 29, 2010

[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: s. 2(c) - Criminal contempt

- Employee filed an OA before Tribunal for quashing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her - Opposite party C raised issue of limitation on the ground that the employee was served charge memo at earlier stage and averment made by her in that regard was false - Tribunal instead of deciding the case on merits or on limitation, held that the appellant was guilty of perjury, as well as of criminal contempt of the Tribunal o

- Propriety of the order of Tribunal - Held: The Tribunal ought to have framed an issue on limitation and asked the parties to lead evidence and decide it on merits - It was totally unwarranted and uncalled for to initiate criminal contempt proceedings merely on the basis of the pleadings taken by the opposite parties - Tribunal failed to appreciate that criminal contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and any action on the part of a party by mistake, inadvertence or by misunderstanding does not amount to contempt - Tribunal ought not to have initiated the criminal contempt proceedings at such a pre-mature stage making reference to the provisions of ss.191, 193 and 197, /PC - Penal Code,

1860ss. 191, 193 and 197- Natural justice- Evidence Act, 1872 - fllustration (f).

Contempt of Courts Rules, 1992: rr. 7, 13, 15 - Criminal G contempt - Power of court/tribunal to initiate criminal contempt proceedings - Scope of - Held: In contempt proceedings, the court/tribunal is the accuser as well as judge of the accusation

227 H

A - Therefore, court/tribunal is required to act with great circumspection - The proceedings being quasi-criminal in, nature, burden and standard of proof required is the same as required in criminal cases - The charges have to be framed as per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved s beyond reasonable doubt - The inquiry/contempt proceedings should be initiated by the court in exceptional circumstances where the court is of the opinion that perjury has been committed by a party deliberately to gain some beneficial order from the. court - In the instant case, criminal c contempt case was neither registered nor numbered separately - Charge was not framed by the Tribunal - Therefore, the contempt proceeding was not conducted in conformity with the rules at all - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

- Natural justice.

D Evidence Act, 1872: s. 114, Illustration (f) - Held: Any document sent by Registered Post is presumed to have been received by the addressee in view of the provisions of s.27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Illustration (f) of s. 114 of the Act, but the presumption is rebuttable - Contempt of E Courts Act, 1971 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - s.27.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant for committing certain irregularities. The appellant filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative F Tribunal on 5.8.2002 for quashing the charge memo dated 30.11.1999 and the subsequent proceedings. She also filed an application for condonation of delay. In the O.A., the appellant made a specific averment that the charge memo dated 30.11.1999 was received by her only on 19.6.2002 when the copy of the same was furnished to G her by the Enquiry Officer. The respondent replied that the order dated 30.11.1999 was issued to the appellant on 2.12.1999 by registered post with acknowledgement due. The Tribunal instead of deciding the case on merits

R.S. SUJATHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 229

I '

or on the isue of limitati.on held that the appellant had A committed criminal conempt, and issued show cause notice dated 15.11.2002 to her. The appellant submitted a reply to the how cau~'e notice contending that she had not made any1false statement for the purpose of securing the order of condonation of delay and, in fact, the charge B memo dated130.11.19.99 was served upon her for the first

I • time on 19 .•. 2002. She also made a request to summon certain gov, ernme'lt records to substantiate her case. The Tribunal dlrected; the respondent authorities to produce the dogumens, i.e.

Inward Register, Postal c

Acknowedgemnt Due and other relevant documents.

On 12.12.2002, the respondent authorities produced certai.n photoc.opies, but they did not produce the reql!ired docu'ments. The case was adjourned to 19.12.2002. The .Tribunal passed the impugned order on 0 19.12.2002 holding that the appellant was guilty of perjury, as well as of criminal contempt of the Tribunal. The appellant files:! a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed. Th_e instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The Tribunal did not adjudicate upon the case filed by the appellant at all. The appellant had approached t.he Tribunal for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her, and the opposite party had raised the issue of limitation pointing out that she had been served the charge memo at an earlier stage and the averments made by the appellant in that regard was false.

The Tribunal ought to have framed an issue on limitation G and asked the parties to lead evidence and decide it on merits. It was totally unwarranted and uncalled for to initiate criminal contempt proceedings merely on the basis of the pleadings taken by the opposite parties.

Before the Tribunal, the case was at a preliminary stage,

A and it ought not to have initiated the criminal contempt proceedings at such a pre-mature stage making reference to the provisions of Sections 191, 193 and 197, IPC. [Paras 6, 8) [235-F-H; 230-F-G]

8 Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr. AIR 1971 SC 1367; Chandrapal Singh & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Anr. AIR 1982 SC 1238; Pritish v. State of Maharasht'ra & Ors. AIR 2002 SC 236, relied on.

T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A. P. & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC C 516; Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC

421 - referred to. '

1.2. The inquiry/contempt proceedings should be initiated by the court in exceptional circumstances where o the court is of the opinion that perjury has been committed by a party deliberately to have some beneficial order from the court. There must be grounds of a nature higher than mere surmise or suspicion for initiating $uch proceedings. There must be distinct evidence of E commission of an offence by such a person, as mere suspicion cannot bring home the charge of perjury. More so, the court has also to determine as on facts, whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence which appears to have been committed. In the instant case, all the documents summoned by the F Tribunal were not produced before it. More so, any document sent by Registered Post is presumed to have been received by the addressee in view of the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Illustration (f) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, G 1872, but every presumption is rebuttable. In such a factsituation, the appellant ought to have been given time to rebut this presumption and lead evidence to prove that she did not receive the said document as alleged by the opposite parties. The Tribunal proceeded in great haste, H as the show cause notice was issued by it on 15.11.2002

R.S. SUJATHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 231

for initiating the said proceedings; it fixed the date for A 12.12.2002 and disposed of the matter on 19.12.2002. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that criminal contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and any action on the part of a party by mistake, inadvertence or by misunderstanding does not amount to contempt. In contempt proceedings, the court is the accuser as well

as judge of the accusation. Therefore, the Tribunal was required to act with great circumspection as far as possible, making all allowances for errors of judgment.

The proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, burden c and standard of proof required is the same as required in criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law 0 does not permit imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings on mere probabilities. The court cannot punish the alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on conjeGtures and surmises. [Paras 12-15) (238-

G-H; 239-A-H; 240-A-C] E Harihar Banerji1 v. Ramshashi Roy, AIR 1918 PC 102; Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. v. Atmaram Sugoma/ Postani AIR 1989 SC 1433; Shim/a Development Authority & Ors. v.

Santosh Sharma (Smt.) & Anr. (1997) 2 SCC 637; Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra JT 2010 (12) SC 287; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors: (2010) 3 SCC 705; L.P. Misra (Dr.)

v. State of U.P. AIR 1998 SC 3337; Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 735 - relied on.

2. In the instant case, admittedly, the procedure prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Rules, 1992 was not followed. A criminal contempt case was neither registered nor numbered separately. No charge was ever

A framed by the Tribunal, as was mandatorily required under the rules. Thus, the question of furnishing a copy of the same to the appellant did not arise. Therefore, the contempt proceedings were not concluded in conformity with the said rules at all. [Para 19) [242-D-E) B Case Law Reference:

(2001) 1 sec 516 referred to Para 3

(1995) 1 sec 421 referred to Para 7 c

AIR 1971 SC 1367 relied on Para 9

AIR 1982 SC 1238 relied on Para 10

AIR 2002 SC 236 relied on Para 11

AIR 1918 PC 102 relied on Para 13

AIR 1989 SC 1433 relied on Para 13

(1997) 2 sec 637 relied on Para 13

JT 2010 (12) SC 287 relied on Para 13 E (201 O) 3 sec 105 relied on Para 15

AIR 1998 SC 3337 relied on Para 16

AIR 2009 SC 735 relied on Para 17

F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICT!ON : Civil Appeal No. 9579 of 2003.

From the Judgment & Order dated 19.12.2002 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore G in 0.A.No. 715 of 2002.

Rajesh Mahale for the Appellant.

Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondents.

R.S. SUJATHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 233

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter called as the 'Tribunal') dated 19.12.2002 in Original Application No. 715 of 2002.

2. (A) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the State of Karnataka vide order dated 24.1.2001 initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, an Indian Administrative Service Officer of Karnataka cadre, on the

allegation that she had committed certain irregularities in the C allotment of wheat under a special programme called the State Funded Wheat Based Nutrition Programme of the Government of India at public distribution system rates to a supplier called Mis Nandi Agro Industries Ltd. The said regular enquiry stood initiated on the basis of the preliminary enquiry report dated D 31.3.1997.

(B) The appellant filed O.A. No.715 of 2002 before the Tribunal on 5.8.2002 for quashing the Articles of charge dated 30.11.1999 and subsequent proceedings on diverse grounds.

E In the said Original Application (hereinafter referred to as 'O.A. '), the appellant had made a specific averment that the charge memo dated 30.11.1999 was received by her only on 19 6.2002, as the copy of the same was furnished to her by the 3rd respondent i.e. the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, it had been contended by the appellant that she had approached the Tribunal within limitation. However, taking abundant caution, she had also filed an application for condonation of delay.

(C) The reply to the said application was filed by the respondents therein on 18.10.2002, wherein it was contended G that the order dated 30.11.1999 had been issued to the

appellant on 2.12.1999 by Registered Post with AD.

(D) The Tribunal instead of proceeding with the matter on merit or deciding the issue of limitation, passed an order dated H

A 15.11.2002 stating that the appellant had made a false statement in the O.A. regarding limitation which was intentional and deliberate. Therefore, prima facie, the Tribunal was of the view that the appellant had committed criminal contempt and a show cause notice dated 15.11.2002 was issued to the B appellant calling upon her "to appear in person before the Tribunal on 29.11.2002 at 10.30 a.m. to answer the said show cause notice on which day the matter would be listed for hearing".

(E) The appellant not only appeared in response to the C said notice personally, but submitted a reply to the show cause notice contending that she had not made any false statement for the purpose of securing the order of condonation of delay and in fact the charge memo dated 30.11.1999 had been served upon her first time on 19.6.2002. She also made a D request to summon certain government records to substantiate her case.

(F) The Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to produce the documents, i.e. Inward Register, Postal E Acknowledge Due and original letter dated 23.12.1999 and other relevant documents, if any, which would have bearing on the matter by the next date and the matter was directed to be listed on 12.12.2002.

(G) On 12.12.2002 though learned counsel for the F respondent authorities did not produce any of the required documents, but he produced the photocopies of letter dated 23.12.1999 and the Inward Register. The Tribunal adjourned the case to 19.12.2002. The Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 19.12.2002 holding that the appellant was guilty of G perjury, as well as of criminal contempt of the Tribunal and imposed the punishment of imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.2,000/-.

3. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the High H Court by filing a writ petition which was ultimately dismissed

R.S. SUJATHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 235

[DR. B:S. CHAUHAN, J.]

vide orqe'r dated 2.9.2003~ observing that the High Court had A no jurisdiction to entertain ·, he matter placing relianc~ on the judgment of this Court in T Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 516, wherein it had been hel.d that against the order under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, passed l>Y the Tribunal, the party aggrieved has to approach B this Court. Hence, this appeal. '

4. Shri Rajesh Mahala, learne~ counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the order impugned had been passed in1 flagrant violation of not only the principles of natural C justice, but also the statutory rules , known as The Contempt of Courts (C.A.T.) Rules, 1992 (hereinafl; r called as 1992 Rules) and the appellant had not been given due,9pportunity to defend herself. The Tribunal did not decide the or.i.§inal application filed by the appellant. The Tribunal pJcked up one of the pleadings taken by the appellant treating it to be false and initiated the D criminal contempt proceedings which is not permissible in law.

Therefore, ttie order impugned is liable to be set aside.

5. Thee ,, is none to oppose the appeal. We have considered the ~; ubmissions made by learned counsel for the i= appellant.

' '

6. The facts rnentioned hereinabove make it clear that the Tribunal has not adjudicated upon the case filed by the appellant at all. The appellant 1'1ad approached the Tribunal for quashing F of the disciplinary r; m'Jceedings initiated against her and the opposite party had ra, ised the issue of limitation pointing out that she had been seNed the Articles of Charges at an earlier stage and the averme, it made by the appellant in this regard was false. The Tribuna11 ought to have framed an issue on limitation, asked the partl, es to lead evidence and decide it on G merit. It was totally unwarranted and uncalled for to initiate criminal contempt proceedings merely on the basis of the pleadings taken by the opposite parties therein. Criminal contempt has been defin!3d under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under: H

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20tb] 14 (ADDL.YS.C.R.

f "(c) "Criminal Contempt" means the publicatioP (iihether

I by words, spoken or writtn. or by signs, by !Visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoeVr which; -

(i) scandalize or tehds to scandalize or lowers 01'tends to lower the authority of ariy court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or o:'5tructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice h any other manner."

It has been submitted by learned counsel for he appellant that none of the above referred to provisions wa~ attracted in D the facts of this case.

7. The learned Tribunal proceeded on the' basis that this Court in Chandra Shshi v. Ani/ Kumar Verm3, (1995) 1 SCC 421, held that nobody. should be permitted to hdulge in immoral E acts like perjury, prevarication and motivatef falsehoods in the

judicial proceedings and if someone does ; o, it must be dealt with appropriately. In case the recourse to.i false plea is taken with an oblique motive, it would definitey hinder, hamper or impede the flow of justice and pre¢nt \the courts from F performing their legal duties.

8. Bfore the Tribunal, the case f!ld been at a preliminary stage, thus, the Tribunal ought not to 1ave initiated the criminal contempt proceedings at such a e-mature stage making reference to the provisions of Sedons 191, 193 and 197 of G the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (her-inafter called as the IPC).

Section 191 IPC deals with givingfalse evidence; Section 193 provides for punishment for givin! 1alse evidence; and Section 197 deals with issuing or signig false certificate.

9. In Chajoo Ram v. Ridhey'Shyam & Anr., AIR 1971

R.S. SUJATHA v. STATE OF KARNA1AKA AND ORS. 237

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

SC 1367, this Court while dealing with a similar issueheld as A under:

" ............ No doubt giving of false evidence and filing false

affidavit~ is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a stronglhand but to start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. Prosecutior1 should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish

the delinquent and ndt merely\because there is some C inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the Court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge ..... "

10. In Chandrapal Singh & Ors. v. Maharaj Singh & Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1238, this Court while dealing with a case of a false statement for the purposes of Sedtions 193 and '199 IPC

held as under:

" ........ When it is alleged that a false statement has been made in a declaration which is receivable as evidence in any Court of Justice or before any public servant or other person, the statement alleged to be false has to be set out and its alleged falsity with referen'ceto the truth found in some document has to be referred to pointing out that the two situations cannot co-exist, both being attributable to

the same person and, therefore, one to his knowledge must be false. Rival contentions set out in affidavits accepted or rejected by courts with reference to onus probandi do not furnish foundation for a charge under G Section 199 /PC. .. ....... Acceptance or rejection of evidence by itself is not a sufficient yardstick to dub the one rejected as false. Falsity can e alleged when truth stands out glaringly and to the1knowledge of the 'person who is making the false statement. Day in and day out in H

A courts averments made by one set of witnesses are accepted and the counter-averments are rejected. If in all such cases complaints under Section 199 IPC are to be filed not only there will open up floodgates of litigation but it would unquestionably be an abuse of the process of B the court ..... "

(Emphasis added)

11. In Pritish v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 236, this Court dealt with the provision of Section 340 of C the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 extensively, in a case where admittedly fo'rged document had been filed in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for getting a higher amount of compensation. The court observed as under:- D

"Reading of the sub-section makes it clear that the hub of this provision is formation of an opinion by the court (before which proceedin~1s were to be held) that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence which appears to have been committed ............ But once the court decides to do so, then the court should make a finding to the effect that on the fact situation it is expedient in the interest of justice that the offence should further be probed into ...... It should

again be remembered that the preliminary. inquiry contemplated in the sub-section is not for finding whether any particular person is guilty or not. Far from that, the purpose of preliminary inquiry, even if the court opts to conduct it, is only to decide whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence which appears to have been comitted."

12. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the inquiry/ contempt proceedings should be initiated by the court in exceptional circumstances whereJhe court is of the opinion that H perjury has been committed by a party deliberately to have

R.S. SUJATHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 239

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

some beneficial order from the court. There must be grounds A of a nature higher than mere surmise or suspicion for initiating such proceedings. There must be distinct evidence of the commission of an offence by such a person as mere suspicion cannot bring home the charge of perjury. More so, the court has also to determine as on facts, whether it is expedient in the B interest of justice to inquire into the offence which appears to have been committed.

13. In the instant case, all the documents summoned by the Tribunal had not been produced before the Tribunal. More C so, any document sent by Registered Post is presumed to have been received by the addressee in view of the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Illustration

(f) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but every presumption is rebuttable. (Vide: Harihar Banerji v. Ramshashi Roy, AIR 1918 PC 102; Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. v.

D Atmaram Sugomal Postani, AIR 1989 SC 1433; Shim/a Development Authority & Ors. v. Santosh Sharma (Smt.) & Anr., (1997) 2 SCC 637; and Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudaya/ Gupta & 1 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287).

14. In such a fact-situation, the appellant ought to have been give'n time to rebut this presumption and lead evidence to prove that she did not receive the said document as alleged by the opposite parties, and it was necessary to do so for the reasons we record later.

15. The Tribunal proceeded in great haste as the show cause notice was issued by the Tribunal on 15.11.2002 for initiating the said proceedings, fixed the date for 12.12.2002 and disposed of the matter on 19.12.2002. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that criminal contempt proceedings are quasi G criminal in nature and any action on the part of a party by mistake, inadvertence or by misunderstanding does not amount to contempt. In contempt proceedings, the court is the accuser as well as judge of the accusation. Therefore, it behoves the Tribunal to act with great circumspectiorl-: as far as possible, H

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (f-.DDL.) S.C.R.

A making all allowances for errors of judgment. Any action taken in unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and therefore is totally unwarranted and should not be encouraged. The proceedings being quasi criminal in nature, burden and standard of proof required is the same as s required in criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged . contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not permit imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings on c mere probabilities. The court cannot punish the alleged

contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and surmises. (See Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705).

16. Needless to say, the contempt proceedings being D quasi criminal in nature require strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the rules applicable in such proceedings. In LP. Misra (Dr.) v. State of UP., AIR 1998 SC 3337, this court while dealing with the issue of observance of the statutory rules held as under: ' E

" ......... we are of the opinion that the Court while passing the impugned order had not followed the procedure prescribed by law. It is true that the High Court can invoke powers and jurisdiction vested in it under Article 215 of the Constitution of India but such a jurisdiction has to be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed bylaw."

(Emphasis supplied)

17. In Three Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. C.E.S.C.

Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 735, and Sahdeo (supra), this Court reiterated a similar view observing that in contempt proceedings the court must conclude the trial and complete the proceedings "in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law".

R.S. SUJATHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 241

[DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

18. The instant case has to be dealt with under the 1992 A Rules. The aforesaid rules provide the following procedure:

"Rule 7. Initiation of proceedings: -

(i) ............................ .

(ii) Every petition for 'Criminal Contempt' made in accordance with these rules and every information other than a petition, for initiating action for criminal contempt under the Act on being scrutinized by the Registrar shall first be placed on the administrative side before the c Chairman in the case of the principal Bench and the concerned Vice Chairman in the case of other Benches or such other Member as may be designated by him for this purpose and if he considers it expedient and proper to take action under the Act, the said petition or information D shall be registered and numbered in the Registry and placed before the Bench for preliminary hearing.

(iii) When suo motu action is taken, the statement of facts constituting the alleged contempt and copy of the draft charges shall be prepared. and signed by the Registrar E before placing t/Jem for preliminary hearing.

Rule 13. Hearing of the case and trial:-

(a) ······ ................... .

(b) .......................... .

(c) The respondent shall be furnished with a copy of the charge framed, which shall be read over and explained

to the respondent. The Tribunal shall then record his plea, G if any.

(d) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . .,.,

(e) ........................ .

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (AOOL.) S.C.R.

Rule 15. Procedure for trial:-

(i) Except as otherwise provided in the Act and these rules, the procedure prescribed for summary trials under Chapter XX/ of the Code shall as far as practicable be followed in the trial of case for contempt.

(ii) ........................ ..

(111) .......................... .

(iv) ......................... .

(v) ........................ .

(Emphasis added)

19. In the instant case, admittedly, the procedure prescribed hereinabove under the 1992 Rules has not been followed. A criminal contempt case has neither been registered nor numbered separately. No charge (s) had ever been framed by the Tribunal as mandatorily required under the rules. Thus E question of furnishing the copy of the same to the appellant did not arise. Therefore, the contempt proceedings had not been concluded in conformity with the aforesaid rules at all. This Court in Sahdeo (supra) while dealing with a similar situation held as under:

"Every statutory provision requires strict adherence, for the reason that the Statute creates rights in favour of persons concerned. The impugned judgment suffered from nonobservance of the principles of natural justice and not ensuring the compliance of Statutory Rules, 1952. Thus, the trial itself suffered from material procedural defect and stood vitiated. The impugned judgment and order, so far as the conviction of the appellants in Contempt proceedings are concerned, is liable to be set aside."

(Emphasis added)

R.S. SUJATHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 243

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

20. The ratio of the judgment in Sahdeo (supra) applies A to this case in entirety. The instant case, is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 1 ~.12.2002 in O.A. No. 715 of 2002

passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal is set aside.

B No costs.

D.G.

Appeal allowed.