STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MAHBOOB S. ALLIBHOY AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 166 · Decided: 10-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v.' 
MAHBOOB S. ALLIBHOY AND ANR. 
APRIL 10, 1996 
B 
[N.P. SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : 
S. 19-Appea/ against order dropping proceedings for contempt or refus-
C ing to initiate proceedings for contempt-Held, not maintainab/e--But person 
initiating contempt proceedings is not without any remedy-Jn appropriate 
cases he can invoke jurisdiction of Court under Article 136 of the Constitu-
tion-However, the instant case does not merit inteiference. 
D 
E 
Constitution of India : 
A1ticle 136-Proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 dropped 
or petition for initiating contempt proceedings dismissed-Remedy to person 
initiating contempt proceedings-Held, in suitable cases Court can exercise 
jurisdiction under Article 136 in larger interest of administration of jus-
tice-However, in present case order requires no inteiference, 
Baradakanta Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Mi,sra, C.J. of the 
Orissa H.C., AIR (1974) SC 2255 = [19751 1 SCR 524 &! D.N. Taneja v. 
Bhajan Lal, [1988) 3 SCC 26 relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
F 
42 of 1992. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.7.88 of the Bombay High 
Court in Crl.A. No. 368 of 1988. 
S.M. Jadhav for the Appellant. 
Y as hank Adhyaru, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala and Ms. N andini Gore 
for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
This appeal has been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra for 
166 
STATE v. M.S.ALLIBHOY 
167 
setting aside an order dated 12th July, 1988 passed by the High Court of A 
Bombay dropping the contempt proceeding which had been initiated 
against the respondents. 
It appears that respondents had filed a writ petition before the High 
Court claiming refund of Rs. 2,60,144-70 paid as counter- vailing/additional B 
duty. The Customs Department filed an affidavit stating that a false claim 
had been made before the Court for obtaining refund because in fact the 
writ petitioners - respondents had not paid any duty at all and had claimed 
the refund on basis of forged documents. In connection with the said 
dispute, a notice was issued to the respondents as to why a complaint be 
not filed against them under Sections 191, 192, 209 and 210 of the Indian C 
Penal Code. A notice was also issued to the respondents directing them to 
show cause why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against chem. 
After taking into consideration the show cause filed on behalf of the 
respondents an order was passed directing that a complaint be filed against 
them. The learned Judges having passed the aforesaid order directed that D 
no action be taken under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter 
referred to as the 'Act'). This part of the order is being challenged in this 
appeal. According to the appellant-State in the facts and circumstances of 
the present case the contempt proceeding should not have been dropped. 
The preliminary question which has to be examined as to whether in E 
the facts and circumstances of the case an appeal is maintainable against 
an order dropping the proceeding for contempt. It is well settled that .an· 
appeal-is a creature of a statute. Unless a statute provides for an appeal 
and specifies the order against which an appeal can be filed no appeal can 
be filed or entertained as a matter or right or course. Section 19 of the Act F 
says : 
"Appeals - (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order 
decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish 
for contempt -
(a) where the order or decision is ·that of a single Judge, to a 
Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court; 
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme 
Court: 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996[ SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court 
of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory, such appeal 
shall lie to the Supreme Court. 
(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that -
(a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against 
be suspended; 
(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and 
( c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has 
not purged his contempt. 
(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an 
appeal rnay be filed satisfied the High Court tha~ he intends to 
prefer an appeal the High Court may also exercise all or any or 
the powers co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.