MUTHU KARUPPAN versus PARITHI LLAMVAZHUTHI AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 15-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 5 S.C.R. 329 
MUTHU KARUPPAN 
A 
v. 
PARITHI LLAMVAZHUTHI AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 2004) 
APRIL 15, 2011 
B 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 
s.2(c) - Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit -
C 
Criminal case registered against respondent-MLA - Sessions 
Judge granted him conditional bail for attending the 
Legislative Assembly to take oath as MLA - Respondent-
\ MLA filed contempt application alleging that on the direction, 
supervision and knowledge of the appellant (Commissioner o 
of Police), respondent no.2 (Inspector) filed an application for 
cancellation of conditional bail granted to respondent no. 1 
and obtained stay of the bail order on the basis of false 
statement/false affidavit thereby preventing him from attending 
the Assembly and taking oath as MLA - High Court held the 
E 
appellant and respondent no.i guilty and sentenced them to 
imprisonment for seven days - On appeal, held: Mere 
suspicion cannot bring home the charge of making false 
statement - Contempt proceedings being quasi criminal in 
nature, burden and standard of proof is the same as required 
in criminal cases - There was no material that the affidavit F 
containing wrong information filed by respondent no.2 was 
made at the instance of the appellant - Affidavit of the 
government counsel also showed that he drafted the affidavit 
purely on the instructions of respondent no. 2 and that the · 
appellant had no personal knowledge of it - Respondent no. 
G 
2 also specifically denied that the application for cancellation 
of bail was moved under the direction, supervision and 
knowledge of the appellant - Apart from specific information 
329 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011! 5 S.C.R. 
in the form of an affidavit highlighting his stand before the 
High Court which dealt with the contempt petition, the 
appellant had also tendered unconditional apology which was 
not even referred to, before passing orders sentencing the 
appellant to imprisonment - In the absence of specific 
reference about consultation with the appellant, it cannot be 
presumed and concluded that the appellant was responsible 
for incorrect information given by respondent no. 2 before the 
High Cowt - Furlher s. 15 of the Act as well as the Madras 
High Courl Contempt of Courl Rules insist that for initiation 
of criminal contempt, consent of the Advocate General is 
· required - Any deviation from the prescribed Rules should 
not be ac;cepted or condoned lightly and must be deemed to 
be fatal to the proceedings taken to initiate action for contempt 
- These provisions were not strictly adhered to - Therefore, 
the order of High Court convicting and sentencing the 
appellant is not sustainable and is set aside - Constitution 
of India - Articles 215 and 225 -
Madras High Court 
Contempt of Courl Rules, 1975. 
s.2(c) - Criminal contempt - Jurisdiction of court to 
E 
initiate proceedings for contempt - Held: While dealing with 
criminal contempt in terms of s. 2(c) of the Act, strict 
procedures are to be adhered - The jurisdiction to initiate 
proceedings for contempt as also the jurisdiction to punish 
for contempt are discretionary with the court - Contempt 
F 
generally and criminal contempt certainly is a matter between 
the court and the alleged contemnor - The person filing an 
application or petition before the court does not become a 
complainant or petitioner in the proceedings - He is just an 
informer - His duty ends with the facts being brought to the 
G 
notice of the court- It is thereafter for the courl.to act on such 
information or not - Madras High Court Contempt of Court 
H 
Rules. 
· 
Respondent no.1 was elected as Member of 
Legislature Assembly in the elections. On the day of 
MUTHU KARUPPAN v. PARITHI LLAMVAZHUTHI AND 331 
ANR. 
election, large scale vi()lence and several atte,mpts of 
A 
booth capturing were reported. A case was registered 
against respondent no.1 for various offences. He filed an 
application for anticipatory bail which was dismissed. On 
17.5.2001, respondent no.1 was arrested and remanded 
to judicial custody. On the same day, the appellant was 
B 
appointed as the Commissioner of Police. Respondent 
no.1 moved an application for bail before the MM which 
was dismissed on the same day. On 22.5.2001, 
respondent no.1 moved an application for bail before the 
Sessions Court mainly on the ground that he had to c 
attend the Assembly on 22.5.2001

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