LexASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL versus NEERAJ KUMAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 457 ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL v. NEERAJ KUMAR & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No.· 1:a39 of 2013) NOVEMBER 22, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Contempt of Court: A B Contempt proceedings - Held: Proceedings of contempt c are quasi criminal in nature and the burden and standard of proof required is the same as in criminal cases -· Charges have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and alleged contemnor becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt as it would be very .hazardous to impose sentence in contempt 0 proceedings on some probabilities. Contempt petition - Filed under Art. 215 of the Constitution - On the a/legation of suppression of facts by respondents before Special Judge dealing with bail application of contempt-petitioner - Held: Power under Art. E 215 of the Constitution can be exercised only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Jaw - High Court was required to examine as to whether proper procedure was adopted in bringing the petition under Art. 215 of the Constitution and as to whether the limitation as prescribed u/ F s 20 of the 1971 Act was attracted in the case - High Court did not advert to any of such issue of paramount importance - More so, no reasoning has been given to reach a conclusion that no deliberate attempt was made by respondents to cause any prejudice to appellant - As both G the parties had raised issues on facts as well as on Jaw, High Court ought to have dealt with the case adverting to all relevant issues, particularly, when appellant had made an a/legation that his liberty had been jeopardised by 457 H. 458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 12 S.C.R. A respondents by interfering with the course of justice by misleading the court - Judgment and order impugned is set aside and the case remitted to the High Court to decide it afresh answering all the factual and legal issues raised by the parties - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.20 - Constitution B of India, 1950 - Art.215. In a case registered against unknown officers of the Enforcement Directorate, alleging false implication of suspects under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, C 1973, a look out notice through the Interpol was issued against the appellant, who was a Deputy Director, Enforcement, and was absconding. The appellant was arrested on 23.12.1999 in India from a hotel where he was staying under a fictitious name. During the course of proceedings, the Special Judge was shown a document D purported to have been emanated from the Interpol Singapore on 29.12.1999 on the basis whereof the respondents-officers argued that the appellant had been in Singapore from 10.2.1999 to 14.2.1999 though his passport which had been impounded did not contain any E such stamp and, therefore, he was possessing and using a forged passport with the same number. The Special Judge accepted the submissions and, by order dated 6.1.2000, rejected the application of the appellant for bail. Subsequently, a letter dated 7.1.2000 was received from F Interpol Singapore that earlier communication dated 29.12.1999 was incorrect and the appellant did not enter Singapore from 10.2.1999 to 14.2.1999. This fact was admitted by the investigating officer on 27.1.2000. On 29.1.2000, the appellant was granted bail. On 1.6.2001 the G appellant filed an application uls 340 read with s.195, CrPC before the Special Judge for taking action against the respondents for suppressing the material facts. The said application was dismissed by the Special Judge by order dated 5.2.2007. The appellant filed a criminal contempt H petition which was disposed of by the High Court ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL v. NEERAJ KUMAR 459 observing that the suppression or misrepresentation was A not deliberate. In the instant appeal, it was contended that the High Court could not have proceeded with the case under Article 215 of the Constitution ignoring the limitation 8 prescribed under the Act 1971. More so, in a criminal case where two views are possible the court must decide in favour of the person proceeded against. Disposing of the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1.1. The judgment and order dated 5.2.2007 of the Special Judge makes it crystal clear that he had given an elaborate judgment deciding two issues, namely, one relating to limitation u/s 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and, secondly, as to whether the suppression 0 of material fact was intentional or motivated on the par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.