DEEPAK KUMAR PRAHLADKA versus CHIEF JUSTICE PRABHA SHANKER MISHRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 28-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

DEEPAK KUMAR PRAHLADKA 
A 
v. 
CHIEF JUSTICE PRABHA SHANKER MISHRA AND ANR. 
APRIL 28, 2004 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt of Court: 
Contempt proceedings-Notice-Held, before holding a contemnor 
guilty of contempt and passing an order of imprisonment against him he is C 
entitled to a notice and opportunity of hearing. 
Petition for contempt of court-Held, could not be heard and disposed 
of by the very same Judges of the High Court who were respondents therein-
Practice and Procedure. 
D 
A Division Bench of the High Court, noticing some newspaper reports 
based on the statement of the appellant as contemptuous, directed issue of 
suo motu contempt notice to him. The appellant, instead of filing reply to the 
contempt notice, filed a contempt petition against the two Judges. Another 
Division Bench of the High Court while dismissing an application filed by E 
the appellant u/s 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, observed that 
the appellant pretending to be a researcher on law and judiciary and claiming 
to have researched several judgments of the Supreme Court and the High 
Court, only exhibited ignorance of'law by filing the said application. The 
appellant filed a second contempt petition against these Judges also contending 
that the charge against him that he pretended to be a researcher of law and F 
judiciary, was false. Both the contempt petitions filed by the appellant were 
dismissed and he was found guilty of contempt of court for having made 
contemptuous and reckless averments scandalizing the Court in the said two 
contempt petitions and was sentenced to six months imprisonment with fine. 
In the appeals the appellant confined his arguments to his conviction G 
and sentence, and contended that it was not permissible in law to hold him 
guilty of contempt for filing the contempt petitions and making averments 
therein, without issue of notice to him and affording a reasonable opportunity 
to respond; and that the second contempt petition filed by him could not be 
835 
fl 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A heard and decided by the very same Judges who were respondents therein. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Undoubtedly, the course adopted by the appellant was very 
shocking and·primafacie the filing of the two contempt petitions and nature 
B of insinuations against the Judges therein were contemptuous; but howsoe\'er 
glaring the facts of the case may be, the appellant was entitled to a notice and 
an opportunity before holding him guilty of contempt and passing an order of 
imprisonment against him. From the record it seems evident that neither any 
notice was issued nor a reasonable opportunity was afforded to the appellant 
C before passing the impugned judgment and order. [839-B-C) 
2. The second contempt petition could not have been heard and disposed 
of by the Judges since they were respondents in the said petition. The prayer 
in that case, though totally misconceived, was to initiate contempt proceedings 
against the Judges who heard and disposed it of. Justice should not only be 
D done but should also appear to have been donc. lt may further be noticed that 
the present is not a case of contempt in the face of the court. It is a case 
where the averments made in the two contempt petitions are prima facie 
contemptuous and tend to scandalize the court. (839-D-E) 
3; Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and keeping in view 
E the improvement in the approach of the appellant in these years, while 
maintaining dismissal of the two contempt petitions filed by the appellant, the 
conviction and seQtence are set aside. (840-B) 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 845 
of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.5.98 of the Calcutta High Court 
in CPAN. No. 902of1998. 
WITH 
G 
Crl. Appeal No. 846 OF 1998 
Appellant in person 
Deepankar P. Gupta and Praveen Kumar for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.K. PRAHLADKAv. CJ. PRABHA SHANKER MISHRA [SABHARWAL, J.] 
837 
Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. These appeals have been filed against the A 
impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High 
Court dated 5th May, 1998, holding the appellant guilty of contempt of court 
for having made contemptuous and reckless averments scandalizing the Cm~rt 
in two Contempt Petitions which he had filed in the High Court and sentencing 
him to six months' imprisonment and fine of Rs.

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