LexARUN KSHETRAPAL versus REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT, JABALPUR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
98
ARUN KSHETRAPAL
v.
REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT, JABALPUR & ANR.
August 4, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Contempt of Court Act (Act No. 70 of 1971), 1971-Ss. 2{b), JO am!
12{1) rrnd with Article 215, Conslitulion of India-Remitting the punishment
awarded after accepting the apology ·rendered by the contemnor and ordering
him to pay .the cost of pcver books, wlzetlier valid-Whether erulorsing 10 the
Registrar a cdpy of the wireless message, addressed ro the State co1111se/, for
infonnatio'n only a1nounts to conte1npt.
Pursuant to telegraphic ini'ormation dated 5 August 1975 received from
the Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh, communicating the directions of the
Jabalpur Bench of the, High: Court of Madhya Pradesh dated' 1 August 1975, for
the production of ·a detenu held under s. 3(1) (a) of the MISA
1971
in the·
court 011 8 August 1975; the appellant, a district Magistrate,
instructed the·
Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, to send the
detenu
to
Jabalpur under
strong guard for his production before the High Court on 8 August 1975.
The
detenu was duly produced in court on 8 August 1975.
·
While seeking a clarification from the Home Secretary, on the order passed
by the State Government under s. 268, Criminal Procedure Code, which was
gazetted on 1 August 1975, as to whether the detenu, under the MlSA is to
be produced before the High Court in connection with the habeas corpus
petition, the aPPdlant also spoke to the Government advocate and the Advocate.
General about the notification.
Since they desired the copy of the notification,.
the appellant despatched a wireles~ message to Advocate-General as follows :
"l"n the light of the above notification, he was requested to request the
court not to insist on the production of VBT as there is strong possibility
of disturbance of public order if VBT is taken out from jail.
Kindly
inform the Government regardin12: the action taken."
A copy of the wireless message was endorsed to the respondent by way of
abundant caution.
Viewing this as amounting to an expression by the appel.
Jant of his inability to obey the order o~ the court on account of the notification
issued by the State Government published in the official gazeHe on 1 August
1975, the High Court, in exercise of the, powers of the court under Art. 215
of the Constitution read with s. 10 of the Contempt of Court Act (Act No. 70'"
of 1971) ordered the appellant to show cause why he should not be committed
for contempt. for which the appellant submitted his reply in the form Of an
affidavit pleading for the discharge of rule 11isi on the ground that no contempt
of court was committed and that the wireless message to the Advocate-General·
did not constitute a contempt of court. The High Court found the appellant·
guilty for contempt by holding that the appellant had sent the wireless message
dated 6 August 1975 without waiting for the reply from the State Government
regarding the clarification of its notification, and convicted the appellant and
sentenced him to suffer imprisonment till thei rising of the court under s. 4
of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 and to pay a fihe of Rs. 100/-. The High
Court, however, accepted the apology of the appellant for the purpose of
remitting the punishment under the proviso to s, 12( I) of the Act and remitted'
the sentence and ordered the appellant to pay the paper book costs and to bear
his own costs.
Hence the appeal under s. 19(1) (b) of the Act.
Accepti"ng the appeal to this Court,
HELD : The order of the High Court cannot be sustained in view of the
tender of apology by the appellant. as well a~ the productioh of the deteOUi-
[102 DJ
All these features, namely, referring to the Home Secreta1·y for clar)fication
or the notification dated 1 AuQust 1975. sending a copy of the said notificatii:in:
r
ARUN KSHETRAPAL V. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT (Ray, CJ . .)
99
to the Advocate,.General, directing the Superintendent, Central Jail, to produce
the, detenu before the court and thel detenu, in fact, having beeh produced before
the High Court-indicate that the appellant thro~ghout acted in a careful
and responsible manner and took all steps m good faith.
[101 B-CF]
HELD FURTHER : In the instaht case, the appellant from the beginning
gave directions for production' of the_ detenu. The wireless mesoage was not
addressed to the court, but to the Advocate.General, only to apExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.