LexIN RE: AJAY KUMAR PANDEY...CONTEMNER versus .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
In Re: A AJAY KUMAR PANDEY ... Contemner NOVEMBER 5, 1996 [KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 129-Contempt of Court~riminal Contempt-Advocate- Filing a petition-in-person in Supreme Court containing intemperate language and a/legations against Judges of High Court and subordinate C court~ourt asking the Advocate to correct the language and remove other defects poimed out by the Registry-Advocate levelling allegations against the Judges hearing the petition and giving notice to them seeking unconditional apology from them for their conduct and behavior in the Court and also demanding compensation from them-Writing letter to President of India for sanction to prosecute the Judges-Threatening to go D on hunger strike and to file case against them-Filing complaint against the Judges branding their conduct as "goondaism "~ontempt proceedings initiated against the Advocate. Contemner filing unconditional apology-- Held, the contemner, by questioning the conduct the Judges through his notice and demanding apology and compensation from them as also by lodging complaint against them, especially in the language employed by E him, is guilty of "criminal contempt" and is liable to be punished therefor in both cases~ontemner is convicted for obstructing the course of justice by trying to threaten and overawe the Court by using insulting and disrespectful language and issuing notices and also launching criminal prosecution against Judges of the Court-Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 129 is independent of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and F the power under Article l 29 cannot be restricted or limited by the Act-- There is no restriction of/imitation on the nature of punishment that Supreme / Court may award while exercising its contempt jurisdiction~ontemner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months-On serving the sentenced for two weeks, remaining sentence shall stand suspended for G a period of two years and may be activated in case the contemner is convicted/or any other offence of Contempt of Court within the said period- Contempt of Courts Act,1971-s.2.(c). Dr. D.C.Saxena v. Hon 'ble the Chief Justice of India, [1996] 5 SCC 216 and Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors., H 407 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. A [19911 4 sec 406, relied on. B ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 55 of 1996. With Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 56 of 1996. (Under Section 19(1)(B) Under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.) Petitioner-in-person, Raju Ramachandra and G.L. Sanghi (for A.C.) Arun Jaitey, Ms. C Sushma Manchanda, Arun K. Sinha and Rajiv Garg and N.D. Garg for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : The contemner is a practicing advocate. He filed Complaint Case D No. 451 of 1994 in the Court of VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow against Shri Mahesh Giri, advocate and Ms. Saroj Bala, VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow for offences under Section 499/500 !PC. Mr. Mahesh Giri, at the relevant time, was the Govt. counsel deputed to work for the prosecution in criminal cases in the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow. It was alleged in the complaint (read with notice E which preceded it as also contemner's statement recorded under Section 200 Cr. P.C.) that the accused namely, Mahesh Giri, advocate and Ms. Saroj Bala, VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow had imputed sexual relations between the contemner and Ms. Saroj Bala which had defamed the contemner and, therefore, he prayed that the accused be tried for the said offences. The statement of the contemner was recorded under Section F 200 Cr. P.C. on 21.9.Q4 but it remained inconclusive. The statement was finally recorded on 26.10.94 and, thereafter, the case was adjourned for enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. It was stated that the petitioner moved an application that the witnesses whom the contemner wanted to examine under Section 202 Cr. P.C. may be summoned by the Court as almost all the them were practicing advocates and influential persons but the complaint G itself was dismissed by the Magistrate on 16.11.94. The petitioner, th~reafter, filed a Criminal Revision against the aforesaid order in the High Court but it was dismissed on 15.2.95. Hon'ble Virendra Saran, J. of the Allahabad High Court who disposed of the Revision observed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.