AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The brief facts of the case are that the accused was appearing as a party-in-person in I.D.A. No.17 of 2015 before the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru who was at that point of time holding the concurrent charge of the Labour Court and the Family Court at Chikkamagaluru. An interim application was filed by the accused to summon certain documents. The same was rejected. Thereafter, the accused filed an application under the Right to Information Act, alleging that his interim application has been dismissed by the Presiding
Officer due to fear of the opposite party and therefore, his application has to be reconsidered on merits. Considering the advanced age of the accused, the Presiding Officer advised him not to indulge in such mischievous conduct.
Thereafter, the Presiding Officer was transferred as the LXVIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Thereafter, the accused addressed various letters threatening to initiate proceedings before the Karnataka Lokayuktha and also to file complaint before the Registrar Vigilance, High court of Karnataka.
Based on these averments, the Suo-moto Criminal Contempt Petition was registered. In support of its case, the complainant examined two witnesses. The statement of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded. He pleaded guilty.
Charges were framed against the accused, that the accusations of the accused amount to criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, punishable under Sections 11 and 12 of the said Act.
(a) C.W.1 was the Principal Judge, Family Court holding the concurrent charge of the Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru between 23.05.2016 to 18.05.2017. He has stated that the application filed by the accused seeking summoning of documents was rejected by him. About one or two months later, the accused had addressed a letter to him asking him to withdraw the order on the ground that the same was passed due to fear of the opposite party.
Thereafter, when the matter was listed, he advised the accused not to indulge in such acts. The Presiding Officer was thereafter transferred as LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in May 2017. Thereafter, once again the accused sent a letter stating that he has addressed a complaint to the Karnataka Lokayuktha to initiate proceedings against him. Two weeks later, yet another letter was addressed indicating that he would make allegations against him to the Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Karnataka. Thereafter, he addressed a letter dated 21.07.2017 to the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, seeking suitable contempt action against the accused.
In the cross-examination, the only suggestion made to the witness was that the accused did not have a lawyer and would conduct the case as party-in-person, whenever the case was listed before him.
(b). C.W.2 is the Deputy Registrar, High Court of Karnataka, who has forwarded the complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka.
Thereafter, on obtaining necessary orders, the present criminal contempt petition is filed.
Learned Government Pleader contends that the acts committed by the accused fall within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is punishable under Sections 11 and 12 of the said Act as such acts are intended to scandalize the court and therefore, the accused should be convicted.
Learned counsel for the accused submits that he has already submitted his apology in the form of an affidavit. He has even pleaded guilty to the charges against him. He submits that the same was done out of desperation, due to his old age, especially, since he was out of employment.
Heard learned counsels.
The evidence of the Presiding Officer has not been challenged in the cross-examination. He has narrated the manner in which the accused had conducted himself. Based on the evidence and the various communications addressed by the accused, we have no option, but to hold that the accused has committed an offence as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The acts committed by him amount to a criminal contempt of court. There is no real contest so far
as the evidence on the charges against him is concerned.
The accused has pleaded guilty to the charges. There is no effective cross-examination on the issue of he having committed the acts of contempt. Therefore, the evidence of CW.1 has remained unchallenged. Therefore, we accept the said evidence.
In these circumstances, on considering the evidence on record, we find the accused guilty of committing a criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and therefore, liable to be punished under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
With regard to the sentence, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused is in the late 50's and he has lost his job and therefore, it was only under tremendous pressure that he indulged in these acts.
Learned counsel further undertakes that he would not repeat such acts before any court of law.
In view of the material evidence on record and keeping in mind the age the accused, we deem it just and appropriate to sentence him to payment of fine, in a sum of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited with the court within a period of four weeks from today. Criminal Contempt Petition is allowed accordingly.