AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Mathivanan, J.—This petition is filed by the Petitioner u/s 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the Respondents for having
violated the Order of this Court dated 07.08.2007 and made in Crl.O.P. No. 8771 of 2007.
The excerpt of the facts, which is absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition is detailed as under:
The Petitioner herein is the father of the deceased S. Sridhar, who was working as a Technical Teacher in Annur ITI at Annur in Coimbatore
District from the year 2005. That on 22.02.2007, at about 09.30 a.m. he had been to attend the annual day function of his institution. At about
01.30 p.m. one of the teachers, who is the close friend of the deceased S. Sridhar, rang upto the Petitioner and informed that his son was not well
and admitted in the Hospital. When the Petitioner along with the family members rushed to the Hospital he was informed that his son was dead.
A complaint was obtained from the daughter of the Petitioner by the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the Annur Police Station and a case in
Crime No. 58 of 2007 u/s 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered.
The Petitioner and his family members developed suspicion on the death of his son, because the Petitioner and his family members were able to
notice injuries on the both the legs in grievous nature. The Police Department had not taken any effective steps to find out the reasons as to what
happened to his son. In this connection, the Petitioner had made a representation on 02.03.2007 to the Superintendent of Police (West) Zonal,
Coimbatore, requesting to reinvestigate the issue. Since there was no response to his representation, he had also made another representation on
13.03.2007 before the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, besides the representation made to the other higher ups.
Being annoyed and goaded by the reckless act of the Police Department, the Petitioner had filed the petition in Crl.O.P. No. 8771 of 2007
before this Court, after invoking the Proviso to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking transfer of all the records relating to the
case in Crime No. 58 of 2007 from the file of the Inspector of Police, Annur Police Station to the file of the Central Bureau of Investigation or any
other agency, which can investigate the matter in an effective manner.
This Court, on considering all the facts and circumstances, had passed an Order on 07.08.2007
Directing the Inspector of Police, Avinashi Police Station, Coimbatore District to reinvestigate into the matter after receiving the entire case records
from the Respondent Police. The Respondent Police was directed to send the entire records to the Inspector of Police, Avinashi Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
It was made clear that:
the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Avinashi Region, Coimbatore District should supervise the investigation made by the Inspector of Police,
Avinashi Police Station, Coimbatore District.
Despite the specific direction by this Court to reinvestigate the case, the Respondent Police had flouted the Order of this Court on the ground
and till date no action has been taken for investigating the suspicious death of the Petitioner''s son. Hence this Petition.
In this connection, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Respondents herein are liable for contempt of this Court for wilful
disobedience of the Order of this Court. The learned Counsel has also maintained that the Petitioner, after passing of the above said Order by this
Court, had sent a representation on 10.09.2007 along with the acknowledgement explaining the situations and need for the immediate action of the
Respondents herein. Even after the representation dated 10.09.2007, the Petitioner had approached the parties concerned on several occasions,
but there was no fruitful result, which the Petitioner was able to get. Further, the learned Counsel would submit that the Petitioner was left with no
other option excepting to knock at the doors of this Court to punish the Respondents for the serious disobedience.
In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision in C. Elumalai and Ors. v. A.G.L.
Irudayaraj and Anr. reported in 2009 (2) CTC 650. In this case, a contempt petition was filed before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India for the
violation of the Order passed by the Supreme Court. It was alleged that by Order dated 19.03.2007 in S.L.P (C) No. 19924 of 2006, the
Supreme Court had directed that the High Court which was considering C.S. No. 597 of 2006 in the original side shall make an effort to dispose
of the Suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. While passing a direction was also given that till the completion of the
Suit the parties shall not create any third party right. It was the case of the Petitioners that in clear violation of this order, third party rights have
been created. Several affidavits have been filed by the Respondents 1 and 2. It was contented on behalf of the Petitioners that there had been
conscious violation of the orders passed by the Supreme Court and that the unconditional apologies offered at various stages are intended to cover
up the violation.
After hearing both sides, a Division Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India headed by His Lordship Hon''ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat
has held that Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of
penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the Court is going to impose
punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward.
It is also held that apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea, but
it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. As was noted in L.D. Jaikwal Vs. State of U.P., :
We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the ""slap-say sorry-and forget"" school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence. Saying
sorry"" does not make the slapper taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word being uttered. Apology shall not be paper apology and
expression of sorrow should come from the heart and nor from the pen. For it is one thing to ""say"" sorry-it is another to ""feel"" sorry.
While writing the judgment, His Lordship Hon''ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat in Paragraph No. 11 has made reference to the decision in Anil
Ratan Sarkar and Others Vs. Hirak Ghosh and Others, and observed that this Court held that the Contempt of Courts Act has been introduced in
the statute-book for securing confidence of people in the administration of justice. If an order passed by a competent Court is clear and
unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation, disobedience or breach of such order would amount to contempt of Court. There
can be no laxity in such a situation because otherwise the Court orders would become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own
understanding of the Court''s order would not be a permissible defence. It was observed that power to punish a person for contempt is
undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of Judiciary but that by itself operates as a string of caution and cannot be used unless the Court is
satisfied beyond doubt that the person has deliberately and intentionally violated the order of the Court. The power under the Act must be
exercised with utmost care and caution and sparingly in the larger interest of the society and for proper administration of justice delivery system.
Mere disobedience of an order is not enough to hold a person guilty of Civil Contempt. The element of willingness is an indispensable requirement
to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act.
On coming to the present case on hand, as rightly held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the forgoing paragraph, the burden rests upon the
Petitioner to establish that the Respondents have deliberately and intentionally violated the Order of this Court dated 07.08.2007.
In this connection, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the father of the
deceased alleging that his son viz, the deceased Sridhar had participated in food festival organised by the school, in which prizes were given to the
person, who completed eating, quantity of the food given to them, within a stipulated time. During the competition, it is learnt that this deceased had
also participated as one of the participants and in the middle of the competition, he fainted and later he was taken to the hospital, where he was
declared dead. Immediately, after his fainting, the school authorities also made attempts to give first aid and they also co-operated to take the
deceased to the hospital.
Further, the learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the Doctor, who had conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased
had opined in the post-mortem report that ""the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to entry of food particles in the trachea and
both braonchi and at the time of autopsy, ethyl alcohol was detected in the visera"".
The learned Public Prosecutor has also maintained that from the statements of the witnesses, who were examined u/s 161(3) Code of Criminal
Procedure it was reliably learnt that there was no premeditation in the offence and it was only because of the participation of the deceased Sridhar
in the eating competition. He has submitted further that the first Respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police, Avinashi, Coimbatore District took
up further investigation in obedience to the direction of this Court and had completed the investigation and since the case was not altered into other
I.P.C. offences, it was referred to the Executive Second Class Magistrate (Tahsildar), Avinashi for compliance. He has also submitted that the
Executive Second Class Magistrate (Tahsildar) vide his dated 15.11.2009 in reference Na. Ka. 7210/09/A1 had taken the case on his file and
subsequently it was closed. He has also contended that the Respondents were having highest regard for the High Court and its directions and that
the Respondents were always obeying and complying with the directions of this Court and that they never committed any conscious disobedience
to the Order of this Court.
This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. This Court has also gone through the entire CD file and the
final report filed by the second Respondent before the Executive Second Class Magistrate (Tahsildar), Avinashi. In the post-mortem report dated
23.02.2007, the following external injuries were said to have been found on the dead body of the deceased Sridhar:
Laceration of 4 � 2-1 c.m. with surrounding abrasion of 1 c.m. seen over front of left big toe and 3 � 1-0.5 c.m. with surrounding abrasion
0.75 c.m. seen in front of left second toe wound vistrideep. No evidence of any internal injuries.
It is also stated in the post-mortem report that trachea contained few food particles in white colour. Both braonchi contained few food
particles. Stomach contained 200 gms., of partially digested food particles. No specific smell and mucosa congested. It also appears that viscera
were preserved for chemical analysis.
After obtaining chemical analysis report, a final report was given by Dr. Menakasekhar, Tutor in Forensic Medicine, who conducted autopsy
and stated that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to entry of food particles in the trachea and both braonchi. At the time of
autopsy, ethyl alcohol was detected in the visera.
In the final report, it is stated that enquiry disclosed that when Sridhar was hurriedly taken to Government Hospital Annur through a two
wheeler in triples, his left leg and foot came in touch with the road portion resulting in abrasion. It is also stated that the injuries found on both
fingers would not lead to death. During the course of investigation, Inspector had examined the complainant parents of the deceased and recorded
their statements, in which none of them had voiced foul play over the death of the deceased.
It is pertinent to note here that in the postmortem report, it has been stated that the fingers and toe nails were bluish. In this connection, a
questionnaire seemed to have been given to the Doctor, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body for which the Doctor had answered that
the reason for bluish colour over nails was mechanical inference due to chocking of food particles with passage of air into the respiratory tract,
which produced lock of oxygen in the inspire air and hence the oxygen contents lowed content of blood increased in the blood stream caused
bluish colour over the skin of nails. He has also answered that this type of change is known as droxic anoxia.
Ultimately, the Investigating Officer had filed a final report on 14.02.2008 with the conclusion that the death of the deceased was absolutely
due to entry of food particles in the trachea and both bronchi and thus no foul play is suspected over the death of the deceased Sridhar.
Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971) confers jurisdiction upon this Court to inquire into or try a contempt of itself or
of any Court subordinate to it.
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (70 of 1971) contemplates the punishment for contempt of Court. As observed in
Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, , the summary jurisdiction to punish for contempt must be exercised with
great care and caution and only when its exercise is necessary for the proper administration of law and justice.
It is settled preposition of law that if an Order passed by the competent Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more than one
interpretation, disobedience or breach of such order would amount to contempt of Court. It is also a settled preposition of law that the power to
punish a person for contempt is undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of Judiciary but that by itself operates as a string of caution and
cannot be used unless the Court is satisfied beyond doubt that the person has deliberately and intentionally violated the order of the Court.
Like any other organ of the State the judiciary is also manned by human beings, but the function of judiciary is distinctly different from other
organs of the State, in the sense its functions is divine. Today judiciary is the repository of public faith. It is the trustee of the people. It is the last
hope of the people. After every knock at all the doors fail people approach the judiciary as the last resort. It is the only temple worshipped by
every citizen of this nation, regardless of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Because of the power he wields a judge is being judged with more
strictness than others. Integrity is the hallmark of judicial discipline, apart from others. It is high time the judiciary must take utmost care to see that
the temple of justice does not crack from outside, which will lead to a catastrophe in the justice-delivery system resulting in the failure of public
confidence in the system. This dictum is held in Tarak Singh and Another Vs. Jyoti Basu and Others, .
To constitute an offence u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home
the charge within the meaning of the amplitude of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
On coming to the instant case on hand, this Court does not see any adequate reason that the Respondent have deliberately and intentionally
violated the Order of this Court dated 07.08.2007 and made in Crl.O.P. NO. 8771 of 2007. Mere disobedience of an order is not enough to hold
a person guilty.
Having regard to the observations made above and on considering the submissions made on behalf of both sides and on perusing the related
materials available on record, this Court is of view that the Petitioner has miserably failed to establish the allegations made against the Respondents.
In the result, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. No costs.