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.