10 April 1996
Supreme Court
Download

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs MAHBOOB S. ALLIBHOY & ANR.

Bench: SINGH N.P. (J)
Case number: Appeal (crl.) 42 of 1992


1

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

PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAHBOOB S. ALLIBHOY & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/04/1996

BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 411        JT 1996 (6)   151  1996 SCALE  (4)158

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  has been  filed on  behalf of the State of Maharashtra for setting aside an order dated 12th July, 1988 passed by  the High  Court of  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  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 Penal Code. A  notice was also issued to the respondents directing them to  show cause  why proceedings  for  contempt  be  not initiated against  them. 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 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 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 of right or course. Section 19 of the Act says:

2

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

    Appeals -  (1) An  appeal shall lie      as  of  right  from  any  order  or      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:           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      may be  filed  satisfies  the  High      Court that  he intends to prefer an      appeal  the  High  Court  may  also      exercise all  or any  of the powers      conferred by sub-section (2).      (4) An appeal under sub-section (1)      shall be filed      (a) in  the case  of an appeal to a           Bench  of   the  High   Court,           within thirty days;      (b) in the case of an appeal to the           Supreme  Court,  within  sixty           days, from  the  date  of  the           order appealed against. On a  plain reading Section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise  of its  jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In other words,  if the  High Court passes an order in exercise of its  jurisdiction to  punish any  person for  contempt of court, then  only an appeal shall be maintainable under sub- section (1)  of Section 19 of the Act. As sub-section (1) of Section 19  provides that  an appeal  shall lie  as of right from any  order, an impression is created that an appeal has been provided  under the  said sub-section against any order passed by  the High  Court while exercising the jurisdiction of contempt  proceedings. The  words ’any  order’ has  to be read with the expression ’decision’ used in said sub-section which the  High Court passes in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish  for contempt.  ’Any order’  is not independent of the  expression   ’decision’.  They  have  been  put  in  an alternative form  saying ’order’  or ’decision’.  In  either case, it  must be  in the nature of punishment for contempt. If the  expression ’any  order’ is read independently of the ’decision’ then an appeal shall lie under sub-section (1) of

3

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

Section 19  even against any interlocutory order passed in a proceeding for  contempt by  the High Court which shall lead to a ridiculous result.      It is  well known  that contempt  proceeding is  not  a dispute between  two parties,  the proceeding  is  primarily between the  court and  the person  who is  alleged to  have committed the  contempt of court. The person who informs the court or  brings to  the notice of the court that anyone has committed the  contempt of such court is not in the position of a  prosecutor, he  is simply  assisting the court so that the dignity  and the  majesty of the court is maintained and upheld. It  is for the court, which initiates the proceeding to decide  whether the  person against  whom such proceeding has been  initiated should  be punished or discharged taking into  consideration  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the particular case.  This Court  in  the  case  of  Baradakanta Mishra v.  Mr. Justice  Gatikrushna Misra C.J. of the Orissa H.C., AIR 1974 SC 2255 - 1975(1) SCR 524 said:      ...Where the Court rejects a motion      or  a  reference  and  declines  to      initiate a proceeding for contempt,      it refuses  to assume  or  exercise      jurisdiction to punish for contempt      and  such   a  decision  cannot  be      regarded  as   a  decision  in  the      exercise  of  its  jurisdiction  to      punish   for   contempt.   Such   a      decision would not, therefore, fall      within the opening words of Section      19, subsection  (l) and  no  appeal      would lie  against it  as of  right      under that provision. Again in the case of D.N. Taneja V. Bhaian Lal, (1988) 3 SCC 26 it was said:           "The right  of appeal  will be      available under  sub-section (1) of      Section   19   only   against   any      decision or  order of  a High Court      passed  in   the  exercise  of  its      jurisdiction    to    punish    for      contempt. In this connection, it is      pertinent to refer to the provision      of Article  215 of the Constitution      which  provides   that  every  High      Court shall  be a  court of  record      and shall  have all  the powers  of      such a court including the power to      punish  for   contempt  of  itself.      Article 215  confers  on  the  high      Court  the   power  to  punish  for      contempt of itself. In other words,      the   High    Court   derives   its      jurisdiction to punish for contempt      from    Article    215    of    the      Constitution. As  has been  noticed      earlier, as  appeal will  lie under      Section 19(1)  of the Act only when      the High  Court makes  an order  or      decision   in   exercise   of   its      jurisdiction    to    punish    for      contempt. It  s submitted on behalf      of  the   respondent  and,  in  our      opinion  rightly,   that  the  High      Court exercises its jurisdiction or      power as conferred on it by Article

4

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

    215 of  the  Constitution  when  it      imposes a  punishment for contempt.      When the High Court does not impose      any  punishment   on  the   alleged      contemnor, the  High Court does not      exercise its  jurisdiction or power      to   punish   for   contempt.   The      jurisdiction cf  the High  Court is      to   punish. When  no punishment is      imposed by  the High  Court, it  is      difficult  to  say  that  the  High      Court     has     exercised     its      jurisdiction or  power as conferred      on  it   by  Article   215  of  the      Constitution." No  appeal   is  maintainable   against  an  order  dropping proceeding  for   contempt  or   refusing  to   initiate   a proceeding for  contempt  is  apparent  not  only  from  sub section (1)  of Section  19 but also from sub-section (2) of Section 19  which  provides  that  pending  any  appeal  the appellate Court may order that (a) the  execution of  the punishment  or the 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. Sub-section (2)  of Section  19 indicates  that the  reliefs provided under  clauses (a)  to (c)  can be  claimed at  the instance of  the person  who has  been proceeded against for contempt of court.      But even  if no appeal is maintainable on behalf of the person at  whose instance a proceeding for contempt had been initiated and later dropped or whose petition for initiating contempt proceedings  has been dismissed, is not without any remedy. In  appropriate cases be can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and this Court on  being satisfied  that it  was  a  fit  case  where proceeding for  contempt should have been initiated, can set aside the order passed by the High Court. In suitable cases, this Court  has to  exercise its  jurisdiction under Article 136 of  the Constitution  in  the  larger  interest  of  the administration of Justice.      So far the facts of the present case are concerned, the learned Judges  having passed  an  order  directing  that  a complaint be  lodged against  the  respondents,  thought  it proper not  to pursue  the proceeding  for contempt  against them.  No   appeal  under   Section  19(1)  of  the  Act  is maintainable. In  the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be  said that such an order requires to be interfered with by  this Court  in exercise  of its  jurisdiction under article 136. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.