http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  664 of 1997

PETITIONER: J. K. Gupta                                                                      

RESPONDENT: D.G.  Investigation & Registration & Ors.                                     

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/11/2004

BENCH: B.N.AGRAWAL & H.K.SEMA  

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T WITH  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1184 OF 1997

B.N.AGRAWAL, J.  

       Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 1997 has been filed by the appellant under  Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ’the  Act’) against order rendered by the Chairman, Monopolies and Restrictive  Trade Practices Commission whereby the appellant has been convicted under  Section 12 of the Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a  period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- , in default to undergo  simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.  Criminal Appeal         No. 1184 of 1997 is by special leave challenging the said order.   

       The short facts are that upon a complaint filed under the provisions of  Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to  as ’the M.R.T.P. Act’) before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices  Commission (hereinafter referred to as ’the Commission’), Unfair Trade  Practice Enquiry No. 66 of 1997 was registered by the Commission and  Chairman of the Commission on 7th February, 1997 issued notice and passed  an interim order restraining Computer Education Centre (respondent No. 2) to  admit students in any course unless the same is recognized by any  appropriate authority.  Respondent No. 2 was further restrained from issuing  advertisements regarding any course which is not recognized with a confirmed  job placement, if respondent No. 2 \026 institute did not guarantee any  procurement of job.  Upon receipt of the notice, the appellant, who was  Service Advisor of respondent No. 2, sent a letter to the Commission for  vacation of order of injunction making therein certain contemptuous allegations  against the Commission.  Upon receipt of such a letter, as in the opinion of the  Chairman of the Commission a case of criminal contempt against the  appellant was made out, notice was issued to him to show cause as to why he  be not punished for criminal contempt, on receipt whereof, reply to show  cause was filed and thereafter the Chairman, after considering all the pros and  cons of the matter, by the impugned order passed on 9th July, 1997 found the  appellant guilty under Section 12 of the Act for criminal contempt and  convicted him which gave rise to the filing of these appeals, as stated above.  

       The only question which falls for our consideration is as to whether in  the present case, undisputedly being a case of criminal contempt, Chairman  alone was empowered to deal with the contempt proceeding or the same  should have been heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two  members, as required under Section 18 of the Act?  In order to decide this  question, it will be useful to notice the provisions of Section 13B of the  M.R.T.P. Act, besides Sections 2(c), 14, 15 and 18 of the Act, which are  quoted hereinbelow. Section 13B of the M.R.T.P. Act reads as under: - "13B.   Power to punish for contempt -  The Commission shall

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

have, and exercise, the same jurisdiction, powers and authority  in respect of contempt of itself as a High Court has and may  exercise and, for this purpose, the provisions of the Contempt of  Courts Act, 1971 shall have effect subject to the modifications  that \026  

(a)     the reference therein to a High Court shall be construed  as including a reference to the Commission;  

(b)     the reference to the Advocate-General in section 15 of  the said Act shall be construed as a reference to such  Law Officer as the Central Government may, by  notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf."

Sections 2(c), 14, 15 and 18 of the Act read as under :-

"2(c) - "Criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by  words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible  representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any  other act whatsoever which \026  

(i)     scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to  lower the authority of, any court; or  

(ii)    prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the  due course of any judicial proceeding; or  

(iii)   interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends  to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other  manner."

"S.14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the  Supreme Court or a High Court. \026 (1) When it is alleged, or  appears to the Supreme Court or the High Court upon its own  view, that a person has been guilty of contempt committed in  its presence or hearing, the court may cause such person to be  detained in custody, and, at any time before the rising of the  court, on the same day, or as early as possible thereafter,   shall \026  

(a)     cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with  which he is charged;  

(b)     afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the  charge;  

(c)     after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as  may be offered by such person and after hearing him,  proceed, either forthwith or after adjournment, to  determine the matter of the charge; and  

(d)     make such order for the punishment or discharge of such  person as may be just.  

       (2)     Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section  (1), where a person charged with contempt under that sub- section applies, whether orally or in writing, to have the charge  against him tried by some Judge other than the Judge or Judges  in whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have  been committed, and the court is of opinion that it is practicable  to do so and that in the interests of proper administration of  justice the application should be allowed, it shall cause the  matter to be placed, together with a statement of the facts of the  case, before the Chief Justice for such directions as he may  think fit to issue as respects the trial thereof.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

       (3)     Notwithstanding anything contained in any other  law, in any trial of a person charged with contempt under sub- section (1) which is held, in pursuance of a direction given under  sub-section (2), by a Judge other than the Judge or Judges in  whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been  committed, it shall not be necessary for the Judge or Judges in  whose presence or hearing the offence is alleged to have been  committed to appear as a witness and the statement placed  before the Chief Justice under sub-section (2) shall be treated  as evidence in the case.           (4)     Pending the determination of the charge, the court  may direct that a person charged with contempt under this  section shall be detained in such custody as it may specify;  

       Provided that he shall be released on bail, if a bond for  such sum of money as the court thinks sufficient is executed  with or without sureties conditioned that the person charged  shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond and  shall continue to so attend until otherwise directed by the court;  

       Provided further that the court may, if it thinks fit, instead  of taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing  a bond without sureties for his attendance as aforesaid."           "S.15.-Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases. \026 (1)  In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt  referred to in section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court  may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by -  

 (a)   the Advocate-General, or       (b)   any other person, with the consent in writing of the  Advocate-General, or       (c)   in relation to the High Court for the Union territory of  Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may,  by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this  behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of  such Law Officer.  

       (2)     In the case of any criminal contempt of a  subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a  reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion  made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union  territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may,  by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.  

       (3)     Every motion or reference made under this section  shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is  alleged to be guilty.  

       Explanation. \026 In this section, the expression "Advocate-  General" means \026  

(a)     in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General or  the Solicitor-General;  

(b)     in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the  State or any of the States for which the High Court has  been established;  

(c)     in relation to the court of a Judicial Commissioner, such  Law Officer as the Central Government may, by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf."  

"S.-18.         Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by  Benches. \026 (1) Every case of criminal contempt under section  15 shall be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than  two Judges.  

(2)     Sub-section (1) shall not apply to the Court of a  Judicial Commissioner." [ Emphasis added ]

       From a conspectus of the aforesaid provisions, it would be clear that by  virtue of Section 13B of the M.R.T.P. Act, the Commission has been  empowered to exercise all the powers to punish for contempt which have  been conferred upon a High Court and the same have to be exercised in the  manner prescribed under the Act.  Section 2(c) of the Act defines ‘criminal  contempt’.   Under Section 15 of the Act, action for criminal contempt, other  than a contempt referred to in Section 14 of the Act, can be taken.  Under  Section 14, action can be taken if the contempt has been committed in the  presence of or hearing of the court.  Section 18 lays down that every case of  criminal contempt under Section 15 shall be heard and determined by a  Bench of not less than two Judges which would obviously show that in the  case of the Commission, a proceeding for criminal contempt has to be heard  and determined by a Bench of not less than two members.   Commission to  be established under Section 5 of the M.R.T.P. Act shall comprise  a  Chairman and not less than two and not more than eight members to be  appointed by the Central Government which shows that the Commission  would consist  of a Chairman and at least two members.  Language of Section  18 of the Act that "criminal contempt under Section 15 shall be heard and  determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges" is very clear and  unequivocal and in case of criminal contempt, the contempt proceeding has to  be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges.  As the  Commission consists of Chairman and at least two members, the contempt  proceeding for punishing the appellant for criminal contempt ought to have  been heard by the Chairman along with another member or the Chairman  could have assigned the matter for hearing to any two members of the  Commission but he alone was not justified in hearing and determining the  proceeding which was in violation of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act.   Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Chairman is liable to be set  aside on this ground alone and the matter has to be remitted to the  Commission for disposal of the contempt proceeding in terms of Section 15 of  the Act.          Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 1997 is allowed, impugned  order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commission to dispose of  the contempt proceeding in accordance with law.   In view of the aforesaid  order, Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 1997 has been rendered infructuous and  the same is, accordingly, dismissed.