AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vishnu Sahai, J.
we have heard Mr. Vishal Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the averments contained in the impugned FIR. In our view, unrebutted they make out an offence punishable under Section 39(i) of the Indian Electricity Act against the petitioners, because as per the FIR, they are the partners of Avadh Hospital and Heart Centre situated in Singar Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow and the electric load being used in the said Hospital, at the time of checking was more than twenty five percent and twenty two kilowatts of the sanctioned load.
Consequently this writ petition preferred by the petitioners for quashing of the impugned FIR, lodged against them under Section 39(1) of the Indian Electricity Act is dismissed in limine.
After we had dismissed the petition, one of us (Hon''ble Kamal Kishore, J) observed that he had got an airconditioner installed at his residence only after getting the kilowatt load increased. On this Mr. Vishal Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner, replied "whether an FIR of theft of electricity had been lodged against him".
Since in our view the aforesaid utterance of Mr. Vishal Dixit ex facie constitutes the offence of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) (i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 we informed him that he would be taken in custody and questioned him as to why he should not be forthwith punished for committing criminal contempt. He replied that he had no intention to scandalize the Court. We are afraid that we cannot accept his reply because the words used by him "Whether an FIR of theft of electricity had been lodged against him" (Kamal Kishore, J.) clearly scandalize and tend to scandalize, lower and tend to lower the authority of this Court in terms of Section 2(c)(i) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and hence the offence of criminal contempt is made out against him.
Consequently, we hold Mr. Vishal Dixit guilty for the offence of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
We questioned the contemnor as to what punishment we should award to him and apprised him of the provisions contained in Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which reads thus;
"Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.
Explanation An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide........"
At this stage, Mr. Vishal Dixit (the contemnor) moved an application, which reads thus: "My Lord, Today after dismissal of petition, whatever offending utterances were made by me I hereby respectfully withdraw the same and tender my unconditional and unqualified apology. I undertake that in future I shall not make such contemptuous utterances. (Vishal Dwit) Advocate" and the President of the Oudh Bar Association Dr. L.P. Misra and a large number of advocates who were present in the Court room also requested us to accept the unconditional and unqualified apology furnished by the Contemnor. We make no bones in observing that on the first blush we were loathe to accept the written unconditional and unqualified apology furnished by the contemnor and the request of the President of the Oudh Bar Association and its members. However, on second thoughts, in view of the remorse and contriteness shown by the contemnor and his assurance that he would not commit such contumacious acts in future, we decide to accept it.
In the result, we find the contemnor Mr. Vishal Dixit guilty for the offence of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and accept his unconditional and unqualified apology.
At this stage the contemnor, the President of the Oudh Bar Association Dr. L.P. Misra and a large number of its members urged that since we have found the contemnor guilty for the offence of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 our judgment may take away his right to practice as an Adovcate and requested us to clarify that it would not effect his right to practice. After the utmost circumspection, having regard to the remorse and contriteness shown by the contemnor, the unconditional and unqualified apology expressed by him and his assurance that in future he would not commit such contumacious acts, it is clarified that this order would not be an impediment in the way of the contemnor practising in Courts. But we equally make it clear that it would not operate as a precedent either for this Court or for any subordinate Court.
(Ordered accordingly)