BIMAN BASU versus KALLOL GUHA THAKURTA & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 25-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 631 
BIMAN BASU 
V. 
KALLOL GUHA THAKURTA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2005) 
AUGUST 25, 2010 
[B.SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - ss. 2(c) and 15 - Criminal 
contempt - Procedure for taking cognizance - Contempt C 
petition filed by private person without ·the written consent of 
the Advocate-General - Held: Is not maintainable - Calcutta 
High Court Contempt of Court Rules, 1975. 
Interpretation of Statutes -
Schedules, Forms and 0 
Appendix - Held: They form part of the statutes/rules. 
The respondents filed a contempt petition in the 
Calcutta High Court under Section 15 of the Contempt of 
Courts Act, 1971, seeking initiation of appropriate 
contempt proceedings against the appellant for making E 
deliberate and willful derogatory, defamatory and filthy 
statements against a sitting Judge of the High Court. 
They, accordingly, prayed for initiation of contempt 
proceedings against the appellant under Sections 2(a), 
2(b), .2(c) and 2(d) of the Act. The appellant challenged the 
F 
maintainability of the contempt petition on the ground 
that the motion was moved without the written consent 
of the Advocate General. The High Court, however, held 
that the contempt petition was maintainable as suo-motu 
action was taken by the Court to initiate contempt G 
.proceedings, and convicted the appellant for committing 
criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act 
and sentenced him, to undergo simple imprisonment for 
a period of three days and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. 
631 
H 
A 
B 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
The question for consideration in the instant appeal 
was whether the Contempt Petition filed by the 
respondents was not maintainable as the consent of the 
Advocate General had not been obtained. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The instant case relates to criminal 
contempt as defined in s.2(c) of the Contempt of Courts 
Act, 1971. Section 15 of the Act, inter alia, provides that 
the action for contempt may be taken by the Supreme 
C Court or the High Court on its own motion or on a motion 
made by (a) the Advocate-General or (b) any other person 
with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. The 
petition to take action against the appellant under Section 
15 of the Act, without the written consent of the Advocate 
o General was not maintainable in law. It is evident from the 
record, the respondents were continued to be shown as 
the petitioners in the contempt case before the High 
Court and they participated throughout as if they were 
prosecuting the appellant. There is no order reflecting 
E 
that the High Court having taken note of the information 
made before it, initiated suo motu proceedings on the 
basis of such information furnished and required the 
respondents only to assist the Court till the disposal of 
the matter. On the contrary, respondents are shown as 
F 
the petitioners in the contempt case before the High 
Court. It is thus clear, it is the respondents who initiated 
the proceedings and continued the same but without the 
written consent of the Advocate General as is required 
in law. The proceedings, therefore, were clearly not 
G maintainable. [Paras 20, 25] [650-C; 647-D-F] 
H 
1.2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 
23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and by Article 215 
of the Constitution and other enabling powers in that 
BIMAN BASU v. KALLOL GUHA THAKURTA & ANR. 633 
behalf, the High Court made the Calcutta High Court A 
Contempt of Court Rules, 1975. The Rules, inter alia, 
provide that proceedings in a criminal contempt may be 
initiated (a) on its own motion by the High Court under 
Section 15(1) of the Act; or (b) on a motion founded on a 
petition presented by the Advocate General under Section 
B 
15(1 )(a) of the Act; or (c) on a motion founded on a 
petition presented by any other person with the consent 
in writing of the Advocate General under Section 15(1 )(b) 
of the Act. Rule 19 of the rules enables the Court either 
to issue Rule Nisi or summarily reject the petition or make c 
such order thereupon as thought fit and the Rule Nisi shall 
be drawn up as far as may be in the model form in Form 
No.1, Appendix I. Rule 20 provides that where the Rule 
is issued by the Court on its own motion or on a motion 
made by the Advocate General under Section 15, the Rule 0 
Nisi shall be drawn up, as far as may be in the model Form 
No

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.