Cri.C.P. 1/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2011
The Registrar (Adm),
High Court of Bombay
Bench at Aurangabad. ....Appellant.
Versus
1. Khandu Punju Jadhav,
Armed Police Constable (Rtd).,
R/o.-29, Ashok Nagar,
Jamangiri Road, Dhule
2. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondents.
Mr. Satish B. Talekar, Amicus curiae.
Mr. K.P. Jadhav, Contemnor, party in person, present.
Mr. D.V. Tele, APP for State/respondent No. 2.
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL &
T. V. NALAWADE, JJ.
DATED : 8th April, 2011.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.]
1. The contemnor Shri. Khandu Punju Jadhav is charged for
committing criminal contempt of the Court as defined under section 2
(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and punishable under section 12
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
2. Shri. K.P. Jadhav was convicted for offence punishable under
section 13 (1) (e) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of
Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand), in default to Simple
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:10:45 :::
Cri.C.P. 1/2011
2
Imprisonment for three months in Special Case No. 86/1995. The
judgment and order was delivered on 31st March 2008 by Shri. R. V.
Jatale, Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dhule.
3. The contemnor preferred an appeal against the said judgment
and order of conviction to the High Court. The appeal was numbered as
Criminal Appeal No. 130/2008. The appeal was admitted by the learned
Single Judge of this Court (Coram : Justice V.R. Kingaonkar) on 25th of
April 2008. The contemnor filed Criminal Application No. 1306/2008 for
grant of bail. By an order dated 25th of April 2008 the learned Single
Judge of this Court suspended substantive sentence and released the
contemnor on bail.
4. The contemnor addressed a communication dated 28th of
January 2011 to Her Excellency Hon’ble the President of India and
circulated its copies to various Hon’ble dignitaries, and Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. By a communication dated 25th of
January 2011 the Registrar (Adm), Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High
Court forwarded copy of communication written by the contemnor
dated 28th of January 2011 to the office of Registrar of Bombay High
Court for being placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate
orders in view of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960,
Chapter XXXIV, Part-II, 5 (f) to (i).
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:10:45 :::
Cri.C.P. 1/2011
3
5. By a communication dated 15th February 2011, Registrar (Judl-I)
informed the Registrar (Judl), High Court of Bombay, Bench at
Aurangabad that Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to take
cognizance under Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960,
Chapter XXXIV, Part-II, 5 (f) to (i). It was requested to take further steps
in accordance with the Rules.
6.
By an order dated 22nd February 2011, the Division Bench of this
Court (Coram : Justice P.V. Hardas and Justice A.V. Potdar) observed that
offence punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act has been prima
facie established against the contemnor. Registry was directed to issue
bailable warrant against the contemnor.
7. By an order dated 18th of March 2011 the presence of the
contemnor was recorded by this Court. This Court made preliminary
inquiries with the contemnor in respect of reasons for writing such
contemptuous communication in respect of the learned Judge Shri. R.V.
Jatale. The proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 130/2008 was called for
perusal of this Court on the said date. We recorded that during the
interaction with the contemnor, no remorse was noticed in respect of
objectionable writings communicated by the contemnor regarding the
learned Judge Shri. R.V. Jatale. Learned Counsel Shri. S.B. Talekar,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:10:45 :::
Cri.C.P. 1/2011
4
appointed as amicus curiae, had submitted that the allegations made by
the contemnor against the learned Judge are highly contemptuous,
scandalous and serious in nature and the contemnor is required to be
dealt with strictly in accordance with law.
8. We issued notice in Form- I as appended to the Contempt
(Bombay High Court) Rules, against the contemnor, returnable on 29th
of March 2011. It was observed that the contemnor was entitled to file
reply in respect of notice issued to him. The Registry was directed to
forward copies of the communications sent by the contemnor to the
High Court along with the notice in Form-I. The contemnor was directed
to remain personally present on the adjourned dates until further orders.
9. On 29th March 2011 the contemnor was present in the Court. The
contemnor submitted that inquiry be initiated against the Judicial
Officer Shri. R.V. Jatale by calling him in the Court in presence of the
contemnor. It was the grievance of the contemnor that he had written
several communications in respect of objectionable conduct of the
learned Judicial Officer Shri. R.V. Jatale and inspite of the same, the
concerned officers of the Court have not conducted the inquiry against
Shri. R.V. Jatale. The charge in respect of the communication made on
28th Janauary 2011 was framed against the contemnor to which he
pleaded not guilty.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:10:45 :::
Cri.C.P. 1/2011
5
10. This Court provided one more opportunity to the contemnor and
posted the hearing of the matter on 8th of April 2011 i.e. today.
11. The contemnor is present in the Court. He has submitted a
written statement. The contemnor had already expressed his desire to
look after his defence personally. The contemnor filed a written
statement in his defence. After going through the written statement, it
was noticed that the contemnor had specifically raised certain
contentions which amounted to commit further contempt of Court and
therefore, it was necessary/desirable to frame specific charge against the
contemnor. Therefore, additional charge was accordingly framed which
was explained to the contemnor. The contemnor pleaded not guilty to
the said charge.
12. From the submissions advanced by the contemnor and the
contents of written statement, we find that the contemnor is very much
aware of the charge which was framed against him in respect of his
objectionable communications made in respect of the learned Judge.
13. In the written statement, the contemnor submitted that Shri. R.V.
Jatale manipulated the record and illegally convicted and sentenced him
to undergo imprisonment of two years and imposed fine of Rs. 20,000/-.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:10:45 :::
Cri.C.P. 1/2011
6
According to him, the application filed against Shri. R.V. Jatale would not
amount to contempt of Court. It was submitted that Judges have
conspired to protect Shri. R.V. Jatale and the Judges and Officers of the
Court have flouted law and are behaving in dictatorial manner. The
contemnor insisted for conducting inquiry of Shri. R.V. Jatale. It is
submitted in writing by the contemnor that the learned Judge Shri. R.V.
Jatale does not have good sense, which could be established by the
contemnor. The learned Judge Shri. Jatale had violated human rights,
therefore, he should be hanged till death. Therefore, he prayed that it
should be ordered that he should be hanged till death. The contemnor
submitted that instead of inquiring into the conduct of Shri. R.V. Jatale,
the Judges have conspired to initiate false cases against the contemnor.
The contemnor had expressed that in the Judicial System the judges are
behaving in dictatorial manner, misusing their position and if an inquiry
is conducted against Shri. R.V. Jatale in presence of the contemnor, he
would be in a position to establish his charges.
14. The contemnor further submitted that he belongs to scheduled
caste (Mahar). In the concluding statement of written statement, the
contemnor submitted that he had not committed contempt of Shri. R.V.
Jatale, instead the learned Judge has committed contempt in writing,
therefore, his conduct be inquired into as the Judge had committed
criminal offence.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:10:45 :::
Cri.C.P. 1/2011
7
15. The contemnor during his oral submissions did not show any
remorse in respect of objectionable communications made on 28th of
January 2011 and the contemptuous statements made in the written
statement filed before this Court today. The contemnor submitted that
he has not committed contempt of the Court. He was found firm on his
allegations made against Shri. R.V. Jatale. He stated that Shri. Jatale failed
to understand the criminal case wherein the contemnor was accused.
The contemnor had used very harsh, contemptuous, scandalizing
remarks against Shri. R.V. Jatale, who was the Trial Judge in Special Case
No. 86/1995 wherein the contemnor was accused. The contemnor
submitted that Shri. R.V. Jatale did not understand the facts of the case
and reached absolutely wrong and illegal conclusions.
16. The contemnor submitted that he is not keeping good health and
it is difficult for him to attend the dates of hearing of the matter. He
requested for expeditious hearing and disposal of the case. After
providing appropriate and adequate opportunity to put up his case, we
inquired with the contemnor, as to whether the contemnor would attend
the next date for pronouncement of the judgment to which the
contemnor expressed his desire that the judgment be delivered today
itself.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:10:45 :::
Cri.C.P. 1/2011
8
17. The learned counsel Shri. A.T. Kanawade holding for Shri. Talekar
placed on record copy of judgment reported in (2007) 14 Supreme
Court Cases 1, Haridas Das Vs. Uash Rani Bank (SMT) and others. The
learned APP Shri. D.V. Tele submitted that the writings of the contemnor
under communication made on 28th of January 2011, and the written
statement of the contemnor filed today and the oral submissions
advanced by the contemnor clearly make out a case of contempt of
court. The learned APP submitted that the writing and the submissions
are highly objectionable, contemptuous in nature and amounts to
scandalizing the Court, lower its dignity in the eye of public at large. The
learned APP further submitted that the contemnor has no remorse in
respect of contemptuous address made by him and inspite of providing
appropriate opportunities the contemnor is not apologetic.
18. The provisions of section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act reads
thus :-
“(c) criminal contempt ” means the publication
(whether by words. spoken or written, or by signs, or
by visible representations, or otherwise) of anymatter or the doing of any other act whatsoever
which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or
tends to lower the authority of, any court ; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:10:45 :::
Cri.C.P. 1/2011
9with, 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 ; ”
19. The contemnor was provided with adequate opportunities.
Charge is framed against the contemnor and explained to him to which
the contemnor pleaded not guilty. The contemnor was a police
constable in the service of the State. By a judgment and order dated 31st
of March 2008 he was convicted and sentenced for the offence
punishable under section 13(1)(e) r/w. 13 (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. His appeal filed against his order of conviction is
still pending before this Court. From the writing of communication
made by the contemnor dated 28th of January 2011 and the written
statement filed before this Court today, we are convinced to hold that the
writings and the contentions raised in the written statement are highly
contemptuous in nature. The contemnor, during the course of his
submission had stated that he had written several such
communications, but so far no inquiry was initiated against Shri. R. V.
Jatale, the learned Judge, who passed judgment against the contemnor.
We have noticed that the contemnor, has absolutely no remorse in
respect of the objectionable communications made by him. The charge
was framed against him and he was made aware about the nature of the
contempt proceedings. The contemnor being a constable must be aware
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:10:45 :::
Cri.C.P. 1/2011
10
of the judicial proceedings conducted in the Trial Court. The contemnor
had filed appeal against the order of conviction and sentence which is
still pending in this Court and the contemnor is on bail under the orders
passed by the High Court pending the hearing and final disposal of the
appeal.
20. Perusal of the objectionable writings of the contemnor and the
written statement/reply signed by the contemnor filed in response to the
notice issued by this Court, we find that it amounts to scurrilous attacks
on the integrity, honesty, judicial competence and impartiality of the
concerned Judge, who convicted and sentenced the contemnor. The
language used is offensive and intimidating. It amounts to bringing
down the institution to disrespect and disrepute. It impairs confidence
of the people in the Court. If such conduct is allowed to go unnoticed
then it may provide handle to the disgruntled to malign the Judges
leading to character assassination.
21. We are referring to the observations made by the Apex Court in
the case of Haridas Das cited supra. Para 1, 28 and 30 of the said
judgment reads as under :-
“Judge bashing” and using derogatory and
contemptuous language against Judges has become
a favourite pastime of some people. These
statements tend to scandalise and lower the::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:10:45 :::
Cri.C.P. 1/2011
11authority of the courts and cannot be permitted
because, for functioning of democracy, anindependent judiciary to dispense justice without
fear and favour is paramount. Its strength is the faith
and confidence of the people in that institution.
That cannot be permitted to be undermined
because that will be against the public interest.
28. Judiciary is the bedrock and handmaid of
democracy. If people lose faith in justice parted by a
court of law, the entire democratic set-up would
crumble down. In this background, observations of
Lord Denning, M.R. in Metropolitan Properties Ltd. V.
Lannon are relevant : (ALL ER p. 310 D)
“Justice must be rooted in confidence; and
confidence is destroyed when right-minded people
go away thinking : “The Judge was biased.”
30. Majesty of law continues to hold its head high
notwithstanding such scurrilous attacks made by
person who feel that the law courts will absorb
anything and everything, including attacks on their
honesty, integrity and impartiality. But it has to be
born in mind that such divinity and magnanimity is
not its weakness but its strength. It generally ignores
irresponsible statements which are anything but
legitimate criticism. It is to be noted that what is
permissible is legitimate criticism and not
illegitimate insinuation. No court can brook with
equanimity something which may have tendency to
interfere with the administration of justice. Some
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:10:45 :::
Cri.C.P. 1/2011
12
people find judiciary a soft target because it has
neither the power of the purse nor the sword, which
other wings of democracy possess. It needs no
reiteration that on judiciary millions pin their hopes,
for protecting their life, liberty, property and the like.
Judges do not have an easy job. They repeatedly do
what rest of us (the people) seek to avoid, make
decisions, said David Pannick in his book Judges.
Judges are mere mortals, but they are asked to
perform a function which is truly divine.”
22. Considering the material placed on record, the written
submission and the oral submission of the contemnor and the
submissions advanced by the learned APP, we are of the view that the
contemnor has committed criminal contempt as defined under section
2(c) of the Contempts of Courts Act. The conduct of the contemnor
attracts punishment for committing the contempt of court punishable
under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
23. The contemnor is aged person. He stated that he is not keeping
good health. Considering his age and health condition, lenient view
needs to be taken while awarding the sentence. Hence, we pass following
order.
(1) The Contemnor Shri. Khandu Punju Jadhav is convicted for
committing contempt of Court punishable under section 12 of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:10:45 :::
Cri.C.P. 1/2011
13
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(2) He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one month.
(3) The contemnor to be taken in police custody for execution of the
order.
[ T. V. NALAWADE, J.]
ig [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.]
ssc/cricp1.11
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:10:45 :::