PETITIONER: R. J. MEHTA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT09/09/1993 BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) RAY, G.N. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 503 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appeal arises under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The contemnor is the appellant and he was found guilty under
Section 12 of the Act and sentenced to suffer simple
imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of
Rs 500
504
in default of payment of which to further suffer simple
imprisonment for two weeks.
3.The case is that the appellant who is a trade union
leader released a statement to the Press which was published
in the Times of India making certain disparaging remarks
against the Industrial Labour Courts. Notice was issued and
the Division Bench of the High Court in an elaborate order
considered all the contentions raised and ultimately awarded
the conviction. Questioning the same, the present appeal
has been filed. It is urged before us that the appellant
filed an apology by way of an affidavit expressing his
regrets about the report mentioned in the papers and that he
intends to unconditionally withdraw the allegations and
charges made in the report and therefore in such a situation
the court should have accepted the unconditional apology
instead of convicting the appellant. We are unable to agree
with the above submissions. The provisions of the
definition of criminal contempt are fully attracted and in
the circumstances the Court is not bound to accept apology.
It is well-settled that sometimes apology is not a weapon of
defence to purge the guilt and under all circumstances it
can be allowed and to be ignored even in special
circumstances. The High Court, however, taking into
consideration all the circumstances awarded a very lenient
sentence. We see no ground to interfere. The appeal is
dismissed accordingly.