Contempt of courts Case Laws in Pakistan | Case laws
 |
| توہین عدالت, contempt of court |
یہ قانون کا طے شدہ اصول ہے کہ ہائی کورٹ کی طرف سے وارنٹ جاری کرنے کے باوجود مجرموں کو گرفتار کرنے کے لیے پولیس کے درمیان ہمیشہ توہین کا معاملہ ہوتا ہے جو قانونی قانونی فرائض کی خلاف ورزی کے مترادف ہے۔ سینئر سپرنٹنڈنٹ کے ایکٹ کو سپریم کورٹ کے عدالتی فیصلوں کو سبوتاژ کرنے کے طور پر لیا جا رہا تھا۔ سینئر سپرنٹنڈنٹ آف پولیس کو توہین عدالت کا مرتکب قرار دیتے ہوئے 15 دن کی سادہ قید کی سزا سنائی گئی اور مزید ہدایت کی گئی کہ وہ روپے جرمانہ ادا کرے۔ 1,000/- اور اس کی عدم ادائیگی پر 7 دن کی سادہ قید بھگتنی ہوگی۔ ایڈووکیٹ جنرل بہت سینئر ایڈووکیٹ ہیں اور ایڈووکیٹ کے طور پر رہے ہیں۔
تفسیر
توہین عدالت. لیگل پریکٹیشنر صدر پاکستان کو خط لکھ رہا ہے اور جان بوجھ کر اس میں اعلیٰ عدالتوں کے ججوں کے خلاف بدنیتی سے جھوٹے الزامات لگا رہا ہے۔ ایکشن، منعقد کیا گیا، سنگین توہین کا قیام۔ Contemner، حالات میں، 2 ماہ S.I اور روپے جرمانے کی سزا سنائی۔ 1000. PLD 1972 SC 115.
اتوہین عدالت. توہین عدالت کے معاملے میں اپنی ہی وجہ سے بیٹھے جج کو ایسا کرنے سے نہیں روکا گیا۔ توہین عدالت کی کارروائی میں بدتمیز جج کی شرکت۔ قرآن و سنت کی رو سے حرام نہیں۔ توہین عدالت کیس کی سماعت میں جج پر عدالتی بدتمیزی کا الزام۔ توہین کی تکرار سے کوئی کمی نہیں۔ ججوں کی تقرری۔ پریس اور عوام کو مناسب یا کسی اور طرح کے جج کے بارے میں تبصرہ کرنے کے اپنے حق پر فخر نہ کریں۔ مخالفین کو قید کی سزا سنائی گئی۔ PLD 1973 L 1۔
ان دفعات کے ذریعہ عدالت کو اس طرح کے معاملے پر مزید کوئی دائرہ اختیار نہیں دیا گیا ہے۔ تاہم، محمد صابر خان کے کیس میں PLD 2002 SC 303 سپریم کورٹ نے طے کیا ہے کہ O. XXXIX، R. 2 اور S. 151 C.P.C کی دفعات کے ذریعے جائیداد کی اس طرح کی منسوخی توہین عدالت کی کارروائی کے ذریعے حاصل کی جا سکتی ہے۔ لہٰذا، زیر بحث جائیداد سے متعلق رجسٹرڈ سیل ڈیڈ کو کالعدم قرار دینے کے لیے جج اِن چیمبر کی اہلیت اور دائرہ اختیار پر شک کرنے کی کوئی وجہ نہیں تھی، حالانکہ موجودہ کیس میں اس کورس کو اپنانے کی صلاح یا دوسری صورت میں اس بنیاد پر حملہ کیا جا سکتا ہے کہ اپیل کنندہ کو منتقل کیا جا رہا ہے۔ زیربحث زمین کی، چیمبر میں جج کی غیر سنی ہوئی مذمت کی گئی تھی۔ اپیل کنندہ کی عدم خدمت عدالت کے نوٹس میں لایا گیا کہ موجودہ درخواست گزار کو پیش نہیں کیا گیا تھا۔ اس طرح اپیل کنندہ کو بغیر سنے جانے کی مذمت کی گئی۔ ڈویژن بنچ نے یہ مشورہ دیا کہ فریقین کو دیوانی عدالت کا سہارا لینے کے لیے چھوڑ دیا جائے یا دوسری صورت میں ایشو میں رجسٹرڈ سیل ڈیڈ کا سہارا لیا جائے، تاکہ اگر ایسا مشورہ دیا جائے تو اپنے متعلقہ شواہد کی رہنمائی کے بعد اس کے متعلق اپنے متعلقہ دعوے قائم کر سکیں۔ غیر قانونی آرڈر کو ایک طرف رکھ دیا گیا تھا اور فریقین کو قانون کے تحت ان کے لیے دستیاب علاج کا سہارا چھوڑ دیا گیا تھا۔ PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (لاہور) 819 (ڈی بی)۔
اپیل کا حق چاہے متاثرہ فریق کو دستیاب ہو۔ جج اِن چیمبر نے اگرچہ متعلقہ افراد کے خلاف توہین عدالت کے مبینہ کمیشن کے حوالے سے کارروائی نہ کرنے کا فیصلہ کیا تھا لیکن اُس نے اسی حکم نامے کے ذریعے رجسٹرڈ سیل ڈیڈ کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا تھا، اس طرح جج اِن چیمبر کے سامنے معاملہ صرف ایشو تک ہی محدود نہیں رہا۔ صرف توہین عدالت، جو کہ عدالت اور توہین کرنے والے کے درمیان محدود تھی، لیکن اس نے اس سے بہت آگے کا سفر کیا تھا اور اس نے جائیداد کے ایک قیمتی ٹکڑے پر توہین عدالت کی درخواست دائر کرنے والے فریق کے حقوق کو شدید متاثر کیا تھا۔ اس طرح متاثر ہونے والے شخص کو توہین عدالت ایکٹ 1976 کے S. 10 کے مطابق اپیل کا حق حاصل تھا۔ PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (لاہور) 819 (ڈی بی)۔
بیلف جب سیکشن 491 کروڑ کے تحت اختیارات کا استعمال کرتے ہوئے حراستی وصولی کے لیے تعینات کیا جاتا ہے۔ P.C یا آرٹ کے تحت. پاکستان کے آئین کا 199 ہائی کورٹ کے نمائندے کے طور پر کام کرتا ہے۔ اس معاملے میں بیلف کی طرف سے پیش کی گئی رپورٹ پر یقین نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ مدعا علیہ کے پاس 30 سال کی خدمت کا کریڈٹ ہے، لیکن محض طویل خدمت کی حقیقت، جس کی نوعیت کی توہین اس نے کی ہے، اسے ہلکا نہیں سمجھا جا سکتا، بلکہ اتنی طویل سروس کے بعد جواب دہندہ کو اس کے بجائے زیادہ محتاط رہنا چاہیے تھا کہ اس نے کیا کیا ہے۔ غیر مشروط معافی مانگنا توہین عدالت کے الزام کا کوئی دفاع نہیں ہے اور جب بھی لذت ظاہر کی جاتی ہے تو یہ رعایت اور رعایت کے ذریعے ہوتی ہے۔ کنٹیمنر نااہلی معافی کی طاقت پر حق کے معاملے کے طور پر بریت یا نوٹس کی برطرفی کا دعوی نہیں کر سکتا اور اس طرح کی معافی خود سے جرم سے پاک نہیں ہوتی۔ گرفتار: ملزم نے تھانہ رپورٹنگ روم میں بیلف کو چار (4) گھنٹے تک حراست میں رکھ کر برہنہ اور بے مثال توہین عدالت کی ہے۔ انسپکٹر کنٹینر کو ایک ماہ ایس آئی اور روپے جرمانے کی سزا سنائی گئی۔ 5,000/- PLJ 2000 Cr.C (لہٰذا) 662۔
.
(2) سپریم کورٹ کو یہ اختیار حاصل ہوگا کہ وہ اپنی یا سپریم کورٹ کے کسی جج کی توہین کا نوٹس لے جس کا الزام کہیں بھی کیا گیا ہو اور ہائی کورٹ کو یہ اختیار ہوگا کہ وہ اپنی یا کسی کی توہین کا نوٹس لے۔ اس کے جج، یا کسی دوسری ہائی کورٹ یا اس کے کسی جج کا الزام ہے کہ وہ اس کے دائرہ اختیار کی علاقائی حدود میں مرتکب ہوا ہے۔
(3) ہائی کورٹ اپنے ماتحت عدالتوں یا کسی دوسری ہائی کورٹ کی توہین کے سلسلے میں وہی دائرہ اختیار استعمال کرے گی جیسا کہ وہ اپنی توہین کے سلسلے میں استعمال کرتی ہے۔
(4) یہاں موجود کوئی بھی چیز پاکستان پینل کوڈ (ایکٹ XLV آف 1860) کے تحت توہین کے کسی جرم کی سزا دینے کے لیے کسی بھی عدالت کے اختیار کو متاثر نہیں کرے گی۔
10. a true statement made in good faith respecting the conduct of a Judge in a matter not connected with the performance of his judicial functions.
COMMENTARY
Counsel addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court in which contemptuous language used against the judge. Court sentenced the contemner. PLD 2006
Application for Contempt of Court on the ground that the authorities did not honour the direction of High Court. High Court on the ground that the authority was not under obligation to approach a private foreign institute for issuance of a certificate, dismissed the application. PLD 2006
Contempt proceedings could not be initiated on the basis of verbal notice to the defendant about order of Court. 2002 CLC 468.
Mere non-compliance of an order, in the absence of contumacy, would not amount to contempt of Court. PLD 2002 SC 1033.
Wilful breach of valid undertaking given to a Court amounts to a contempt of Court u/S. 3 of Contempt of Court Act, 1976. 2004 PCr.LJ 1890.
Contempt of Court by the counsel who had addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court in which contemptuous language had been used against the Judge in respect of the manner in which the Judge had conducted the case and dealt with the counsel since the time the matter had come on the list of the Judge. Court, in circumstances, sentenced the contemner advocate to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- the State vs. Muhammad Akbar Cheema Advocate. PLD 2006 Lah. 193.
Appellant started shouting in Court room. Appellants/ advocates were directed to stop interfere in proceedings but they did not stop and used contemptuous language against judges. Appellants were found guilty of contempt of Court. Held: Appellant/Advocate has placed himself at mercy of Supreme Court stating that he has highest regard for superior judiciary of
Perusal of contemners' reply to notice of contempt would indicate that he made observations which were uncalled for. Respondent was obliged to follow remand order in letter and spirit which he failed to do. High Court instead of framing charge under the law of contempt thought it proper to recommend action against respondent (Presiding Officer Labour Court) on administrative side, in as much as, that respondent was dismissed on 19.9.1992 after inquiry on corruption charges when he was on the strength of High Court as Addl. District and Sessions Judge. Respondent thereafter managed to obtain dismissal order set aside from the then Chief Minister but so far he is not recognized as judicial officer by High Court and was not allowed to resume duty. Government of Sindh thereafter, posted him as
Representation by State Counsel in contempt proceedings was not permissible under law. PLJ 2000 Kar. 284 = PLD 2000
No bar exists in moving the Court in order to bring a case of Contempt of Court to the notice of Court for taking action against an alleged contemner or contemners. Such right, however, cannot be misused with malicious intention to cause harassment to others. PLJ 2000 Kar. 284 = PLD 2000
Where petitioners were found guilty of contravention of cl. (1) of Sindh Foodgrains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957, licenses of petitioners were rightly cancelled and contempt application against alleged contemner who was Rationing Controller and Licensing Authority was dismissed with costs. PLJ 2000 Kar. 284 = PLD 2000
It is settled law that tendering of unqualified apology amounts to admission of charge. PLJ 2000 SC 1729.
Learned counsel reiterated that unqualified apologies tendered by their clients are in alternative and without prejudice to submissions made by them on merits. Such apologies do not qualify for acceptance in light of well settled principles laid down by Superior Courts in this behalf i.e. (a) apology must be offered at earliest stage of contempt proceedings and may not be postponed till fag-end of proceedings; (b) apology must be unconditional, unreserved and unqualified; (c) apology should not only appear but must also satisfactorily represent sincere and genuine remorse and should not be half-hearted or mere formality; and (d) contemner should not endeavour to justify his conduct. Respondents had specifically disputed charges levelled against them, had unequivocally pleaded their innocence and had endeavoured to justify their conduct even at fag-end of proceedings. Therefore, their apologies are not accepted. Awarded simple imprisonment for one month each and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. PLJ 2000 SC 1729.
Appellant's plea, that truth is complete defence and was available to him which right was scuttled by not permitting him to lead evidence, was rejected by observing that appellant had courage to attribute dishonest and ulterior motive to Hon'ble Chief Justice as well as two other Judges of High Court. According to him, action in inquiry proceedings was being taken on the ground of annoyance of Hon'ble Chief Justice and two Judges. Reasons given for so-called annoyance of one Judge was that about 30 years earlier a writ petition was filed against the relations of Hon'ble Judge which was decided three decades earlier. As regards the annoyance of second Judge, Appellant stated that he proceeded strictly in accordance with law without showing any favour to any side in Election when he was associated with election duty, therefore, his strict observance annoyed Hon'ble Judge. Held: Both these clauses are not even remotely related to allegations which he has made in his contempt application. Although he has tried to malign Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges by further appending copies of Reference made under Art. 209 of Constitution yet their presence as annexures of what is contained in them is totally alien to remarks and allegations made in his contempt application. Therefore, ground or defence of truth is not available to him. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (
Observed that even if he felt choked by so called sectarian prejudice and bias entertained by the then Registrar of Court, who, according to Appellant influenced Inquiry Officer, grievances could have been voiced through a Constitutional petition without there being any need to throw invectives at Chief Justice and Judges of High Court. Held: that this mode was adopted to satiate ill-founded belief entertained by appellant against respondents and two other Judges that it was due to them that sufferings had been showered on him and through sinister insinuation he wanted to hit back but in doing so he incurred wrath of Institution. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (
Directing appellant to lead defence would have aggravated contempt committed on the face of Court as it has been held by learned single judge that it was an attempt to further scandalize Court and for reasons given his application was rightly dismissed. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (
Respondents conducted departmental enquiry and issued him a show-cause notice, against which petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of by High Court. Department, afterwards dismissed him from service. Appeal was also dismissed. No case of contempt of Court was made out against respondents. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (
In fact it is clearly in derogation of the judgment of High Court as well as of Supreme Court, which tantamounts to interference in judgment of Courts and fall within the scope of contempt of Court. Held: Non-observance of orders of the Superior Courts would create a chaos, which brings a situation to minimize the state concept of sovereign Islamic state minus a strong and independent judiciary is unimaginable. If judiciary of the country is stripped off its power, the country would cease to exist as free nation. This principle is specifically contained in our constitution by virtue of Preamble Arts. 2-A, 4, 5 (2), 23, 24, 25, 37 and 38. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (
Plea that "Pensionary Benefits" does not include "Retirement Benefits", as the latter is wider in its scope than former, is erroneous. In the scheme itself both phrases viz. "Pension Benefits" and "Retirement Benefits" have been used as "Synonymous". One does not get "pension" while he is still in service. Likewise "Retirement Benefits" are only available after one actually retires. In other words, in both circumstances, the right to pension and other retirement benefits accrues after one ceases to be an employee. Term "Pension" is a collective name of all benefits an employee gets under various heads. All are generally known as "Pensionary Benefits" or "Retirement Benefits". They are the same. In general sense, the term "pension" denotes to a grant after release from service. Case not fit for initiating contempt proceedings against the concerned employees of the Bank as they acted under the bona fide impression that the petitioners were not entitled to said amount. PLJ 2004 SC 839.
Legal Course would be to proceed in the matter under S. 154 Cr.P.C. as and when information about commission of a cognizable offence was provided. Injuries on the person of petitioner's son having not been denied, first of all local police must proceed in the matter under S. 154 Cr.P.C., and thereafter, if information provided by complainant was found to be false, case should be cancelled and proceedings against him be initiated in accordance with law as directed by High Court's order of specified date. In case of non-compliance of present order, proceedings under contempt of Court would be initiated. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (
It is settled principle of law that contempt is always between the contemner and the Court. 2005 YLR 337.
It is settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character. He who seeks equity must come in the Court with clean hands. 2005 YLR 337 = PLJ 2005 Lah. 559.
Jurisdiction of High Court or Supreme Court is to be exercised either on its own information or as laid before it by any person and it shall be thereafter that High Court may exercise jurisdiction in respect of Contempt of Courts subordinate to it, as it exercises in respect of contempt of itself. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (
No action was taken against accused/doctor because he was brother of Secretary Health and being elder brother of accused doctor, he protected him and retained his brother in service. Act of respondent Secretary Health tantamounts to gross contempt of High Court and Supreme Court as he was guilty of frustrating order of High Court and Supreme Court. Conduct of Secretary Health in sending summary to Governor to claim remission of sentence awarded to his brother by Court is cunning attempt on his part of frustrating order of High Court and Supreme Court. Apart from committing illegal omissions and mala fides, Secretary Health also caused great loss to State Exchequer by paying convicts salaries for specific period. Apology tendered by Secretary Health does not reflect sincere and genuine repentence and was half hearted. Secretary Health was found to be guilty of gravest form of contempt and was convicted and sentenced to 3 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof, he would undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Failure of Senior Superintendent of Police to arrest convicts despite warrants issued by High Court amounts to shirking statutory legal duties. Act of Senior Superintendant was being taken as a sabotage to judicial decisions of Superior Courts. Senior Superintendent of Police was convicted of contempt of Court and sentenced to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment with further direction to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- & in default thereof to undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. Advocate General being very senior Advocate and having remained as Advocate General for 2/3 times before, instead of coming to aid of criminal administration of justice and to maintain dignity of Courts opted to become defence counsel of contemners. Advocate General while doing so was definitely on the wrong side of law. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (
4. Punishment.--Whoever, commits contempt of Court or abets the commission of contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that, on being satisfied that the accused, whether after defending himself or without offering any defence, has purged himself of the contempt of Court, the Court may discharge the accused or remit his sentence.
COMMENTARY
Contempt of Court. Legal practitioner addressing letter to President of Pakistan and deliberately levelling therein maliciously false allegations against judges of Superior Courts. Action, held, constituted gross contempt. Contemner, in circumstances, sentenced to 2 months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000. PLD 1972 SC 115.
Contempt of Court. Judge sitting in his own cause in matter of contempt not prevented from doing so. Participation of maligned judge in contempt proceedings. Not forbidden by Holy Quran and Sunnah. Accusing judge of judicial misconduct in hearing of a contempt case. Nohting short of repetition of contempt. Appointment of judges. Press and public not to arrogate to themselves right of commenting as to suitability or otherwise of judge. Contemnors sentenced to imprisonment. PLD 1973 L 1.
No further jurisdiction has been conferred by those provisions upon a Court seized of such matter. However, in Muhammad Sabir Khan's case PLD 2002 SC 303 Supreme Court has laid down that such invalidation of property could be achieved through contempt proceedings by invoking provisions of O. XXXIX, R. 2 and S. 151 C.P.C. therefore, there was no reason to doubt competence and jurisdiction of Judge-in-Chamber to invalidate registered sale-deed relating to property in question although advisability or otherwise of adoption of that course in present case can be assailed on the ground that appellant being transferee of land in question, had been condemned unheard of Judge in Chamber. Non service of appellant was brought to notice of Court that present petitioner had not been served. Appellant was thus admittedly condemned unheard. Division Bench found it advisable and prudent to leave parties to have recourse to
Right of appeal whether available to affected party. Judge-in-Chamber had although decided not to proceed against concerned persons regarding alleged commission of contempt of Court by them yet he had invalidated registered sale-deed through same order, thus matter before Judge-in-Chamber had not remained confined to issue of contempt of Court alone, which was restricted between Court and contemner, but had travelled much beyond that and had seriously affected rights, of a party to said contempt petition over a valuable piece of property. Person so affected thus, had a right of appeal in terms of S. 10 of Contempt of Court Act 1976. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (
Bailiff when deputed to recover detenue while exercising powers under Section 491 Cr. P.C. or under Art. 199 of Constitution of Pakistan acts as representative of High Court. Report submitted by bailiff in this case cannot be dis-believered. Respondent has 30 years of service to his credit, but mere fact of long service, in nature of contempt he has committed, cannot be treated lightly and rather after such a long service respondent should have been more careful instead what he has done. Unconditional apology is no defence to charge of contempt of Court and whenever indulgence is shown that is by way of grace and concession. Contemner cannot claim acquittal or discharge of notice as matter of right on strength of unqualified apology and such apology does not ipso facto purge offence. Held : Accused, by detaining bailiff for four (4) hours in reporting room of police station has committed naked and unprecedented contempt of Court. Inspector Contemner sentenced to one month S.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lah.) 662.
5. Jurisdiction.--(1) A High Court or the Supreme Court, on its own information or an information laid before it by any person, may take cognizance of an alleged commission of contempt of the Court.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power to take cognizance of any contempt of itself or any Judge of the Supreme Court alleged to have been committed anywhere and a High Court shall have the power to take cognizance of any contempt not itself or of any Judge thereof, or of any other High Court or of any Judge thereof alleged to have been committed within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction.
(3) A High Court shall exercise the same jurisdiction in respect of contempts of Courts subordinate to it or to any other High Court as it exercises in respect of contempts of itself.
(4) Nothing contained herein shall affect the power of any Court to punish any offence of contempt under the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860).
COMMENTARY
Object of awarding punishment to a person for Contempt of Court is two-fold, namely that he should be sentenced for violating the law and secondly a deterrence to the like minded persons who without caring for the consequences do wrongs and violate the law. PLD 2002 Lah. 247.
Where the order passed by High Court was very clear and could be understood by any person who had passed the High School Examination in
An aplogy does not furnish a complete defence to a charge of contempt of Court. PLD 2002 Lah. 247.
According to Black's Law Dictionary "Punishment" means any fine, penalty, or confinement inflicted upon a person by the authority of the law and the judgment and sentence of a Court, for some crime or offense committed by him, or for his omission of a duty enjoined by law, a deprivation of property or some right, but does not include a civil penalty redounding to the benefit of an individual, such as a forfeiture of interest. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, p. 1234.
Suit for permanent injunction was filed by petitioner. Temporary injunction granted. Suit was disposed of on ground of undertaking that the plaintiff under taken would not be dispossessed illegally. Grievance application was filed regarding Contempt of Court. Violation of undertaking trial Court instead of acting upon provision of law framed issues. Matter was referred to High Court. Question of reference of matter. Jurisdiction. Held: Jurisdiction of High Court or Supreme Court is to be exercised either on its own information or upon information as laid before it by any person and it shall be thereafter that High Court may exercise jurisdiction in respect of Contempt of Courts subordinate to it as exercises in respect of Contempt of itself. Criminal miscellaneous dismissed. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (
6. Bars to taking cognizance.--(1) No High Court shall take cognizance under this Act of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where the said contempt is an offence punishable under the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860).
(3) No Court shall take cognizance of a contempt of Court arising from an averment made in due course in appellate, revisional or review proceedings, till such proceedings have been finalized and no further appeal, revision or review lies.
(4) No Court shall take cognizance of a contempt of Court arising from an averment made before the Chief Justice of a High Court, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the Supreme Judicial Council, the Federal Government or a Provincial Government,--
(a) until the petition to which the averment relates has been finally disposed of; or
(b) otherwise than under the orders of the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the Supreme Judicial Council, the Federal Government or the Provincial Government, as the case may be.
7. Procedure for Supreme Court and High Court.--(1) Whenever, it appears to the Supreme Court or a High Court that there is sufficient ground for believing that a person has committed contempt of Court and that it is necessary in the interest of effective administration of justice to proceed against him, it shall make an order in writing to that effect setting forth the substance of the charge against the accused, and, unless he is present in Court, shall require by means of an appropriate process that he appears or be brought before it to answer the charge.
(2) The Court shall inform the accused of the ground on which he is charged with contempt of Court and call upon him to show cause why he should not be punished.
(3) The Court, after holding such inquiry and taking such evidence as it deems necessary or is produced by the accused in his own defence and after hearing the accused and such other person as it deems fit, shall give a decision in the case:
Provided that, in any such proceedings before the Supreme Court or High Court, any finding given in its own proceedings by the Supreme Judicial Council about the nature of an averment made before it, that is relevant to the requirement of clause (vi) of the provision to Section 3, shall be conclusive evidence of the nature of such averment.
(4) If contempt of Court is committed in the view or presence of the Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and, at any time before rising of the Court on the same day, may proceed against him in the manner provided for in the preceding sub-sections.
Explanation.--Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (x) of the proviso to section 3, in any proceeding under this sub-section, it shall not be open to the offender to take up a plea of truth of the statement for making which he is proceeded against.
(5) If any case referred to in sub-section (4) cannot be finally disposed of on the same day, the Court shall order the release of the offender from custody either on bail or on his own bond.
8. Transfer of proceedings for reasons personal to the Judge.--(1) Where, in a case in which a Judge has made an order under sub-section (1) of Section 7, not being a case referred to in sub-section (4) of that section, the alleged contempt of Court involves scandalization personal to such Judge and is not scandalization of the Court a whole or of all the Judges of the Court, the Judge shall forward the record of the case and such comments, if any, as he deems fit to make, to the Chief Justice of the Court.
(2) On receipt of the papers mentioned in sub-section (1), the Chief Justice, after inviting, if he deems fit, further comments, if any, from the Judge first taking cognizance of the offence and making such inquiry in such manner as he deems fit, shall pass orders specifying which one of the following hear the case--
(a) another Judge, which, if the Chief Justice so orders, may be the Chief Justice;
(b) a Bench of Judges set up by the Chief Justice, of which the Judge first taking cognizance of the offence is not a member;
and the case shall then be heard accordingly.
(3) If, at any stage of a case in which the Chief Justice has passed an order under clause (a) of sub-section (2), the Chief Justice is of opinion that, in the interests of justice, the case shall be transferred to another Judge, he may pass an order accordingly, and the case shall then be heard by such other Judge.
(4) When, in pursuance of an order under sub-section (2), the Judge first taking cognizance of the case is not hearing the case,--
(a) the other Judge or, as the case may be, the Bench of Judges hearing the case may invite or receive any further comments from the Judge first taking cognizance of the offence and shall call and hear any witnesses whom such Judge desires to be examined; and
(b) all documents furnished by the Judge first taking cognizance of the offence shall be treated as evidence in the case and such Judge shall not be required to appear to give evidence.
(5) When in a case the first cognizance of the offence has been taken by the Chief Justice, the functions of the Chief Justice under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be performed by a Bench of Judges composed of the two next most senior Judges available.
9. Proceedings in camera and prohibition of publication of proceedings.--In case of proceedings for transfer of a hearing under Section 8 or of any proceedings in which truth is pleaded as a defence in terms of clause (vi) of the provision to Section 3, the Court, if it deems fit in the public interest, may hear the case or any part thereof in camera and prohibit the publication of the proceedings of the case or any part thereof.
10. Appeal and limitation for appeal.--(1) From an original order passed by the High Court under this Act an appeal shall lie, if the order is passed by a Single Judge, to a Division Bench, and if it is passed by a Bench of two or more Judges, to the Supreme Court.
(2) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from an order passed by a Division Bench of a High Court in appeal against an order passed by a Single Judge.
[(2A) An intra-Court appeal shall lie against the issuance of a show-cause notice or an original order including an interim order passed by a Bench of the Supreme Court in any case, including a pending case, to a larger Bench consisting of all the remaining available Judges of the Court within the country:
Provided that in the event the impugned show-cause notice or order has been passed by half or more of the Judges or the Court, the matter shall, on the application of an aggrieved person, be put up for re-appraisal before the full Court:
Provided further that the operation of the impugned show-cause notice or order shall remain suspended until the final disposal of the matter in the manner hereinbefore, provided"; and]
[Repeated:
Provided further that the operation of the impugned show-cause notice or order shall remain suspended until the final disposal of the matter in the manner hereinbefore provided".]
(3) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed--
(a) in a case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days; and
(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against.
[(4) An intra-Court appeal or application for re-appraisal shall be filed within thirty days from the date of show-cause notice or the order, as the case may be.]
COMMENTARY
Contempt of Court. Appellant/convict, a barrister at law. If a Judge is under an obligation under circumstances not to hear the case it means that litigant had a corresponding right for transfer of his case and he commits no contempt by informing of the Court of the right to which he is entitled unless there was something insulting or offensive in the tone or manner of his address to the Court. Law of contempt exhaustively examined. Conviction and sentence of 7 days awarded by the LHC, set aside. PLJ 1977 SC 449.
Single Judge did not feel inclined to move any further in the matter nor any charge was framed therefore, no appeal under S. 10 Contempt of Court Act 1976, was maintainable. PLJ 2003
Casual leave by appellant during pendency of matter in question. Competent Authority having granted leave to appellant on his request, justification or otherwise of same was not open to any scrutiny in contempt of Court proceedings. No mala fide could be attributed to appellant while deciding question of non-compliance of order. PLJ 2002 SC 1263.
Material placed on record and attending circumstances would show that appellant was not guilty of any contumacy and delay in submission of report was caused by circumstances not fully within his control and his conduct did not constitute contempt of Court. Impunged judgment of Division Bench was set aside and notice of contempt issued to appellant was discharged. PLJ 2002 SC 1263.
Appellant being honest judicial officer who had 27 years meritorious service in Provincial Judiciary with un-blemished record, there was no reason to presume or hold that he would think of showing disrespect to orders of Supreme Court. PLJ 2002 SC 1263.
No findings of Court that facts as stated by appellant were factually wrong or that there was any contumacy on his part based on ulterior motives or mala fides. Appellant was not found to have any personal interest in the matter and thus, had no reason to delay the making of report with a view to benefit any of parties in case. Matter on which report was called being delicate one, appellant could not make any report unless he had consulted Judges of High Court who had dealt with case who only knew factual position. Concerned Judge had advised him to seek further time for submission of report so that proper reply based on facts could be submitted. Appellant in no manner would be deemed to be guilty of contumacy or to have shown any disrespect or dealt with case casually as found by Division Bench. PLJ 2002 SC 1263.
Contempt of Court based on defiance or violation of a judicial order in nature of temporary injunction by a party whereby such party was restrained from acting in a particular manner but inspite of service of notice or having come to know of passing of such order, acts in a manner to alter position to his advantage so as to frustrate temporary injunction and an act of mere non-submission of a report called for by Court by an officer of Court. Distinction drawn and illustrated. In former case, Court would take strict view and mere act of defiance of judicial order would by itself justify raising of presumption that doer of act was guilty of contempt of Court unless he proves otherwise whereas in latter case, it has to be determined on application of judicial mind as to whether appellant deliberately did not submit report on account of having personal interest in any of parties to cause damage to the other party in case in which report was called or had any personal interest which if proved or established would make act of non-submission of report mala fide. In absence of any of these facts and element of contumacy, his conduct could not be held to have suffered from mala fides or contempt of Court. PLJ 2002 SC 1263.
Comments
Post a Comment