SAHDEO @ SAHDEO SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 1086 · Decided: 23-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 1086 
SAHDEO @ SAHDEO SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
·(Criminal Appeal No. 527 of 2002) 
FEBRUARY 23, 2010 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court: 
c 
Alleged illegal abduction and detention by police 
personnel - Suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by 
Division Bench of Allahabad High Court - Conviction of 
appellants - Justification of - Held: On facts, not justified -
Contempt proceedings were concluded without ensuring 
0 
compliance of the mandatory provisions of the statutory Rules 
framed for the purpose (i.e. the 1952 Rules) - The appe/lants 
were never informed as what were the charges against them 
- Relevant documents on the basis of which the High Court 
had taken a prima facie view while initiating suo motu 
E contempt proceedings, were not made available to them -
Notice itself was not only defective, but inaccurate and totalfy 
mis-leading - Principles of natural justicfJ were not observed 
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.23 - Allahabad High 
Court Rules, 1952 - rr. 5 and 6 of Chapter XXXV-E - Natural 
justice. 
F 
Contempt proceedings -
Nature of -
Safeguards 
provided to alleged contemnor - Held: Contempt proceedings 
are quasi-criminal in nature - The alleged contemnor is 
entitled to protection of all safeguards/rights provided in 
G criminal jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt - Court 
not to punish an alf eged contemnor merely on conjectures 
and surmises. 
H 
Contempt proceedings - Requirement of expeditious 
1086 
SAHDEO @ SAHDEO SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. AND1087 
ORS. 
conclusion - Inapplicability of CrPC and Evidence Act - Held: 
A 
lnspite of the contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in 
nature, provisions of CrPC and Evidence Act are not attracted 
thereto, since such proceedings have to be concluded 
expeditiously. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 108 - Presumption under, of a 
person being dead - Held: On facts,. such presumption was 
erroneously drawn by High Court since only 4!12 years had 
elap~ed since the first informant's son went missing. 
B 
FIR was lodged alleging illegal abduction and 
C 
detention of the first informant's son by police personnel 
and thereafter Habeas Corpus petition was filed in the 
Allahabad High Court. The High Court directed the 
District Judge concerned to hold inquiry as regards the 
allegations made in the Habeas Corpus petition and, upon 
D 
receipt of the report from the District Judge, suo motu 
initiated contempt proceedings against the alleged 
contemnors under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 
As the whereabouts of the first informant's son could 
E 
not be traced, the High Court presumed that he had died 
and disposed of the Habeas Corpus petition by 
/ 
transferring the investigation to the CBI. In the contempt 
case, the High Court held that in taking the first informant' 
son into custody, the appellants did not comply with the 
directions issued by this Court to police authorities in 
F 
D.K. Basu's case, and accordingly sentenced them to six 
months imprisonment and further directed the State 
Government to terminate the services of the appellants 
after holding disciplinary proceedings. 
G 
In appeals to this Court, it was contended on behalf 
of the appellants that the High Court committed an error 
in observing that the first informant's son had died and 
that therefore, no purpose would be served in continuing 
with the Habeas Corpus petition; that there was not even 
H 
• 
' 
1088 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A prima facie evidence against the appellants in contempt 
proceedings; that the court did not adopt the fair 
procedure; that even charges had not been framed; that 
the enquiry conducted by the District Judge, at the most, 
could be treated to be a preliminary enquiry; that the High 
s Court erred in placing reliance on a preliminary enquiry 
report and convicting the appellants without furnishing 
the copy thereof to them and also that contempt 
proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and the Court 
while deciding the criminal case does not have 
c ·competence to issue any direction affecting the civil rights 
of the parties. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 
D provides for presumption of a person being dead in case 
he has not been heard of for seven years. In the instant 
case, only a period of 41h years had elapsed. Therefore, 
such a presumption could not have been drawn by the 
High Court. [Para 8] [109

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