Criminal Contempt Petition No.10 of 2008

10th June, 2009

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. SANJAY JAIN
Respondent Counsel: Ms. P. H. KANTHARIA

Cases Cited:
R. K. Garg, Advocate Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, , (1981)3 SCC 166 [Para 6]
Suresh Chandra Poddar Vs. Dhani Ram, AIR 2002 SCC 439 [Para 6]
In Re S. Mulgaonkar, AIR 1978 SC 727 [Para 8]
Union of India Vs. Satish Chandra Sharma, (1980)2 SCC 144 [Para 10]
Suresh Chandra Poddar Vs. Dhani Ram, AIR 2002 SCC 439 [Para 11]
Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. High Court of M.P., (2007)14 SCC 126 [Para 12]

JUDGMENT

Smt. RANJANA DESAI, J.:- Mr. Anirudha Kisan Fulmali, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai has submitted Reference under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 to this court praying that respondent 1- contemnor Amit Umraochand Jain, original complainant, (contemnor for convenience) be dealt with as per the provisions of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 for the disregard and disrespect shown by him to the court on 13th November, 2007 in his court.

2. The gist of the Reference needs to be stated. Criminal Case No.5249/SS/07 in which the contemnor is the complainant was posted for hearing on 13th November, 2007 before learned Magistrate. The complaint is filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The contemnor took proceedings of the said case in his custody to see verification statement. He saw that the cheque amount was mentioned as Rs.40,000/-. Suddenly he scored last zero of Rs.40,000/- to make it Rs.4,000/- without giving chance to Mr. Pramod Jadhav, Clerk to prevent him from doing so. Mr. Pramod Jadhav asked him as to why he had scored last zero of Rs.40,000/-. He warned the contemnor that he had tampered with the court record. Mr. Pramod Jadhav asked him to sign there and put date below his signature. Accordingly contemnor put his signature and put date 13th November, 2007 below his signature. Mr. Pramod Jadhav brought this fact to the notice of learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate asked for an explanation from the contemnor. When learned Magistrate asked the contemnor about the scoring and tampering of court proceedings, the contemnor made comments derogatory to learned Magistrate. When the judicial work was going on, he behaved adamantly and arrogantly. He threatened learned Magistrate that he would report the matter to learned Chief Justice and that he would also go to the press so that learned Magistrate will have to tender apology to him. Contemnor further stated that he will however not tender any apology. Learned Magistrate has stated that he tried to pacify the contemnor, but in vain. Learned Magistrate has quoted the derogatory remarks made by the contemnor.

3. It is against the background of the above facts that learned Magistrate has submitted the Reference to this court. He has requested this court to take action against the contemnor for the contempt of Court committed by him.

4. At this stage we must note that the court clerk Pramod Jadhav has filed complaint in the Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Marg Police Station and offences punishable under sections 420, 228, 466 and 506 of the IPC are registered against the contemnor. We are informed that pursuant to this complaint, the contemnor was arrested and was in jail for 3 days. Subsequently he was released on bail. That case is pending.

5. On this petition, Rule was issued on 12th June, 2008. Notice was issued to the contemnor. The notice was served on the contemnor. On 8th April, 2009, time was sought to file reply by learned counsel for the contemnor. On 22nd April, 2009, contemnor appeared in our court. We must note that on that day, which was the first effective date of hearing, the contemnor admitted that he had made the statements which are quoted by learned Magistrate in his Reference. He tendered unconditional apology before us and stated that he will file an affidavit to that effect. The petition was adjourned to 24th April, 2009. The contemnor accordingly filed affidavit dated 23rd April, 2009. In the affidavit he has stated that he is suffering from Bipolar Disorder and on several occasions he is not in a position to understand the implications of his actions. He has stated that he did not have and never had any intention to commit contempt. He has stated that he was under treatment for Bipolar Disorder since year 2002. He has further stated that initially he was being treated by Dr. Ashish Sheth, M.D. and since the year 2004 he has been under the treatment of Dr. Bharat Vatwani. A copy of the medical certificate issued by Dr. Bharat Vatwani dated 23rd April, 2009 had been filed in this court. We may quote the relevant paragraphs of his affidavit as under :

"2. I have great respect and regard for this Hon'ble Court and for the Hon'ble Magistrate who was presiding over the 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. I am a law abiding citizen. I have great respect and regard for the law, the Courts that administer Law and the Officers presiding over such Courts. I do have and never had any intention to insult or disrespect any judicial officer including this Hon'ble Court. The disrespect shown is unintentional and without realizing that the words spoken (in the heat of the moment and probably on account of the condition of my mind i.e. I suffer from "Bipolar Disorder") amount to disrespect to the Court.

3. I hereby tender unconditional apology to Hon'ble Court and to the Learned Magistrate. I repent my action. I am not in any way trying to justify my action."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the affidavit filed by the contemnor and in view of the fact that contemnor is suffering from Bipolar Disorder, this court may take a kindly view of the matter. He submitted that apology tendered by the contemnor is genuine and bonafide and this court may accept it and discharge the contemnor. Learned counsel has relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in R. K. Garg, Advocate Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1981)3 SCC 166. In that case the appellant-advocate had hurled a shoe at the presiding officer of the Court. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.200/- for having committed contempt. The appellant carried an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence. While reducing the sentence, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant who was present in the court was regretful and genuinely contrite. The Supreme Court further observed that he had suffered enough in mind and reputation and no greater purpose was going to be served by subjecting him to long bodily suffering. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence. Learned counsel also relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra Poddar Vs. Dhani Ram & Ors., AIR 2002 SCC 439 and submitted that unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor be accepted and contempt notice be discharged.

7. Ms. Kantharia, learned APP, submitted that the contemnor has shown extreme disregard for the Court. He may therefore be dealt with in accordance with law.

8. Before we deal with the petitioner's case, it is necessary to see what the Supreme Court has said about the powers which the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 vests in the court to punish a person for contempt of court. In Re S. Mulgaonkar, AIR 1978 SC 727, the Supreme Court was considering the question whether a certain publication in the Indian Express newspaper contained derogatory remarks against the court leading to Contempt of Court. The Supreme Court dropped the proceedings. But, it is necessary to note what it said while dropping the proceedings. The Supreme Court observed -

"The first rule in this branch of contempt power is a wise economy of use by the court of this branch of its jurisdiction. The court will act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardized by a gross and/or unfounded attack on the judges, where the attack is calculated to obstruct or destroy the judicial process. The court is willing to ignore by a majestic liberalism, trifling and venial offences - the dogs may bark, the caravan will pass. The court will not be prompted to act as a result of an easy irritability. Much rather, it shall take a notice look at the conspectus of features and be guided by a constellation of constitutional and other considerations when it chooses to use, or desist from using, its power of contempt."

9. Emphasizing the need to be stern with professional contemnors, the Supreme Court observed that -

"The court shall not mediate nor hesitate but shall do stern justice to such professional contemnors, not shrink because they are scurrilous, influential or incorrigible. Even so, to be gentle is to be just and the quality of mercy is not strained."

10. In Union of India & Ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Sharma, (1980)2 SCC 144, while disapproving the severity of punishment imposed for contempt of court, the Supreme Court observed :

"It is well known that the contempt power should be kept sheathed and the sword should be drawn only sparingly if the court is convinced that there has been willful defiance or disobedience. Moderation lends dignity to power and we feel that the facts of the present case far from call for any stronger step than an admonition to comply within a realistic spell of time and stiffer action thereafter."

11. In Suresh Chandra Poddar Vs. Dhani Ram & Ors., AIR 2002 SCC 439, the Central Administrative Tribunal had convicted a Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi under section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and under section 12 of Contempt of Court's Act, 1971. He carried the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Tribunal. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court may be quoted as under :

"12. We have chosen to say so much in this case to give a message to the Tribunal that contempt jurisdiction is not to be exercised casually but only sparingly and in very deserving cases. It is appropriate to bear in mind the adage. "It is good to have the power of giant, but not good to use it always"."

12. In Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. High Court of M.P., (2007)14 SCC 126, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the power to punish for contempt is not to be intended to be invoked and exercised routinely or mechanically but with circumspection and restraint.

13. Proviso to Section 12 of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 states that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Explanation to Section 12 states that an apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.

14. The above discussion leads us to conclude that power to punish a person for contempt of court is a very powerful weapon in the hands of the court. This power is not exercised by judges for their personal reasons. When a judge is obstructed in performance of his judicial work by hurling abuses at him, by passing derogatory and scurllious comments on him, it is the authority of the court, which is undermined. It is the dignity and majesty of the court which is sullied. Such actions erode the faith of people in judiciary. Once people's faith in judiciary is shaken, the foundation of the democratic State is wakened. Hence, the power to punish for contempt of court and the need to deal with those who maliciously and intentionally try to bring the courts in disrepute with firm hands however high and mighty they may be. It is also the duty of this court to ensure that dignity and authority of subordinate courts is maintained and their image is not tarnished by unjustified malicious attack on them. Any attempt to terrorize them and to undermine their authority and majesty must be dealt with firm hands.

15. But, there could be cases where a contemnor is truly remorseful for what he has done. There could be evidence to show that he was carried away by an impulse and did not really intend to show disregard to the court. There could be evidence to show that the contemnor really did not understand the implications of his action because his power to comprehend was impaired by a physical disability. There could be medical evidence to bear out such physical condition. In a given case, a contemnor who is truly contrite may tender an unqualified apology at the first available opportunity. In our opinion, in such peculiar facts, regard being had to other circumstances an unqualified bona fide apology tendered at the outset could be accepted and contempt notice could be discharged by admonishing the contemnor so that justice is tempered with mercy. In such cases, this court must remind itself of what Justice Krishna Iyer said in Re. S. Mulgaonkar's case that to be gentle is to be just and the quality of mercy is not strained. Equally important is the adage which the Supreme Court quoted in this context in Suresh Chandra Poddar's case that "It is good to have the power of giant, but not good to use it always".

16. Undoubtedly, the contemnor's utterances in the court are derogatory to learned Magistrate. Undoubtedly, his conduct interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings. He tried to lower the authority of the court. He refused to tender apology and threatened the court. Such conduct has to be dealt with severely. At the cost of repetition we must state that we are mindful of our duty to protect the subordinate courts from mindless onslaught on their dignity which lowers their authority in the eyes of people. We are convinced that the contemnor is guilty of grossest of the contempts. Normally we would have sentenced the contemnor but for the unconditional apology tendered by him and his physical condition. We have already quoted extensively from his affidavit. He has not only tendered unconditional apology in the affidavit but has tendered it in the open court on the first effective date of hearing. We admonished him for his conduct. He promised us that in future such incidents would not be repeated by him. The apology tendered by him appears to us to be genuine and bonafide and not an after thought.

17. We have gone through the original medical file tendered in the court by Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the contemnor. Original Certificate dated 23/4/2009 issued by Dr. Bharat Vatwani, M.P. (Psychiatry) is perused by us. Dr. Vatwani has stated that the contemnor is under his treatment for Bipolar illness. The relevant portion of the certificate reads as under :

"The illness is characterized by mood swings, temper outbursts, hyper irritability and periods of excitability alternating with periods of low depressive mood. Though he is regular on medication, the symptoms are not fully under control and there is waxing and waning of symptomatology. Currently, he is in the depressive phase of illness."

18. The file contains several prescriptions issued by Dr. Vatwani. The contemnor appears to be constantly under heavy medication. We have also seen the medical record of the contemnor maintained by Dr. Ashit Sheth, who was earlier treating him. That record also confirms that the contemnor was taking treatment for the same ailment from Dr. Sheth. Therefore, the statement made by the contemnor in this court that he is suffering from Bipolar Disorder is true.

19. We have already noted that the contemnor was detained for a period of three days pursuant to the complaint lodged by the court clerk. Considering the physical condition of the contemnor and the unconditional apology tendered by him in his affidavit as well as in the open court on the first effective date of hearing which appears to us to be genuine and bonafide, we are of the opinion that a kindly approach needs to be adopted. The apology deserves to be accepted. The contemnor has told us that he is genuinely sorry for what he has done and he will not repeat such behaviour in future. His unconditional apology has vindicated the honour of learned Magistrate. In the circumstances, we accept the unconditional apology and discharge the contempt notice. We hope and trust that the contemnor abides by the promise given by him to us. We, however, make it clear that we have merely discharged the contempt notice. So far as the pending complaint filed against the contemnor under sections 420, 228, 466 and 506 of the IPC is concerned, that is an independent matter. The said complaint shall proceed in accordance with law. Discharge of this contempt notice shall not weigh with learned Magistrate while dealing with the said complaint. He shall deal with it independently and in accordance with law. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the said complaint.

20. The petition is disposed of.

Ordered accordingly.