http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  845 of 1998

PETITIONER: Deepak Kumar Prahladka

RESPONDENT: Chief Justice Prabha Shanker Mishra & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/04/2004

BENCH: Y.K. Sabharwal & Arun Kumar.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

[With Criminal Appeal No.846/1998]

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

       These appeals have been filed against the 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 Court in two  Contempt Petitions which he had filed in the High Court and sentencing  him to six months’ imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-.   The proceedings  in the said two Contempt Petitions  No.333 of 1997 and CPAN No. 902 of  1998 were also disposed of in terms of the impugned judgment and order.   This Court granted to the appellant an order of  stay of sentence of  imprisonment only. Before release, the appellant had already undergone  an imprisonment for 36 days.         CC No.333/97 and CPAN No.902/98 were filed by the appellant  before the High Court for initiating contempt of court proceedings against  the respondents who at that point of time were the sitting judges of the  High Court.  CC No.333/97 was filed on 4th December, 1997 against the  two judges who were members of the Division Bench which made an order  dated 16th September, 1997 directing issue of suo motu contempt notice to  the appellant noticing in their order that the newspaper reports based on  the statement of the appellant were prima facie contemptuous.  By the said  order the appellant was also directed to file a supplementary affidavit  giving details of his educational qualifications in justification of his claim of  being a law researcher, to furnish details of the contempt application which  he has allegedly made and which was pending before the High Court and  reasons and  justification for  the statements made in the newspaper with  the materials on which he may claim to have relied.  Prima facie, the Court  found  that the newspaper reports tend to interfere with the administration  of justice.  In terms of the orders dated 13th August and 16th September,  1997, suo motu contempt notice dated 26th September, 1997 was issued  to the appellant.           The second contempt petition (CPAN No.902/98) was filed by the  appellant on 24th April, 1998 against two other Hon’ble judges who were  members of another Division Bench which  passed an order dated 12th  January, 1998 dismissing an application which the appellant had filed  under Section 340 Cr.P.C.  In the judgment dated 12th January, 1998, the  Division Bench made observations to the following effect :-  "Pretending to be a researcher on law and  judiciary and claiming he has successfully  researched several judgments of the Supreme  Court and the High Court in regard to  interpretation of law and power exercised by the  Courts, the petitioner Deepak Kumar Prahldka

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

has only exhibited ignorance of law by filing the  instant petition."

       According to the appellant, the  charge that he pretended to be a  researcher of law and judiciary was false and had been made without  reference to any  evidence and in this view the appellant prayed that the  contempt of court proceedings be initiated against the judges who were  members of the Division Bench.   For decision of these appeals, we would assume as correct the  claim which the appellant had made at the relevant time that he is a  researcher on law and judiciary,  having researched several judgments of  Supreme Court and the High Courts in regard to the interpretation of law  and power exercised by the courts. On this assumption, the course  adopted by the appellant in filing two contempt petitions was rather more  shocking since the assumption would also show that the appellant is not a  layman but a person well versed with law.   It is fully understandable that  when an order is passed directing  issue of suo motu contempt notice to  the appellant, he contests it on such grounds as may be available in law  but  the appellant adopted a strange and wholly uncalled for course of filing   contempt petition against the judges who made the order directing issue of  such contempt notice.  Likewise, it is understandable that if the appellant is  aggrieved by the order dated 12th January, 1998, he  challenges  correctness thereof in appropriate proceedings or if any incorrect factual  statement is made in that order, he seeks an order for expunging  that  statement but, instead of so doing, he files a contempt case (CPAN  No.902/98) against the  judges who  passed the order dismissing his  application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.         When the aforesaid two contempt petitions came up for  consideration before a Division Bench, which comprised of two Hon’ble  Judges who had passed the order dated 12th January, 1998, the appellant  for having made in those  petitions sweeping contemptuous remarks  against the judges and having gone beyond all norms of a civilized society  and having scandalized the court in the manner he filed the contempt  petitions and made allegations therein, was convicted of contempt of court  and sentenced as earlier noticed.  Both contempt petitions were dismissed.         The appellant has appeared in person. The dismissal of the two  contempt petitions by the High Court is not under challenge.  The appellant  submits that he does not wish to challenge the impugned judgment and  order to the extent it dismisses those contempt petitions. The challenge of  the appellant is to his conviction and sentence by the impugned judgment  and order.  The main  ground urged by the appellant in support of his  challenge is that it was one thing to dismiss the contempt petitions filed by  him but it is altogether different to hold him guilty of contempt for filing the  said contempt petitions and making averments therein which the appellant  contends, is not permissible in law without issue of notice to him and  affording him a reasonable opportunity to respond.  The second contention  of the appellant is that CPAN No.902/96 could not have been heard and  disposed of by the Hon’ble Judges who passed the impugned judgment  and order as the judges themselves were respondents in the said petition.   There is merit in both the contentions.  Undoubtedly, the course adopted  by the appellant was very shocking and prima facie the filing of the two  contempt petitions and nature of insinuations against the judges therein  were contemptuous but howsoever 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 before passing the  impugned judgment and order. Further, the second contempt petition could  not have been heard and disposed of by the learned 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.  The justice should not only be done  but should also appear to have been done.  It 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

contemptuous and tend to scandalize the court. On the aforesaid facts, ordinarily setting aside the impugned  judgment and order, we would have remitted the matter to the High Court  for issue of notice and grant of opportunity to the appellant before deciding  whether he is guilty of contempt.  But, having regard to the peculiar facts of  the case, we are of the view that it is not necessary to remand  the case.   The appellant has already undergone a sentence for a period of 36 days.   Both the contempt petitions (CC No.333/97 and CPAN No.902) have been  dismissed and the appellant does not wish to challenge the dismissal  thereof. Moreover, the appellant  seems to have learnt the lesson in the  last six years.  Instead of the negative approach as demonstrated by filing  of the two contempt petitions, he claims to have started constructive work  of promoting the rights of the prisoners and has joined as a legal  correspondent in one of the reputed newspapers in support whereof he  has filed the newspaper reports. Those reports show that the appellant is  working as a legal correspondent.  It is claimed by the appellant that  reports are widely appreciated by legal fraternity and judges of the High  Court.  The appellant also does not want to lay challenge or hold anyone  responsible for the period of 36 days spent by him in jail.         Having regard to the aforesaid peculiar facts, while maintaining  dismissal of the two contempt petitions, we set aside the impugned  judgment and order convicting the appellant for contempt of court and  sentencing him as aforesaid. The fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to  the appellant.  The appeals are disposed of accordingly.