Whether arrest of accused to whom anticipatory bail is granted amounts to contempt of court?

Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have taken the view that once the Respondent had been granted interim bail Under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure as per order dated 17.02.2006, his arrest on 26.05.2007 on a charge which has been later on added Under Section 307, Indian Penal Code constitutes contempt.

3. We find that this addition of charge is based on a subsequent investigation on the direction issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police after disposal of the Section 438 petition by the High Court and the arrest also was carried out on his instruction. It is significant to note that when the FIR was originally registered Section 307 had been included. It was deleted based on the instruction of a superior officer. After such deletion only, the Respondent approached the High Court.

4. We find that the Appellant had tendered an apology explaining his conduct before this Court in the Civil Appeal. We also find that the Appellant had tendered unconditional apology explaining that he only carried out the instruction of the Superintendent and he bona fide understood the order passed by the Court to mean that the Respondent is entitled to protection Under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure only in respect of those offences reflected in the order dated 17.02.2017. Section 307, Indian Penal Code having been added subsequently there was no impediment in proceeding with the investigation after arresting the Respondent on that count. In our view, in the facts of the present case, it is a plausible explanation to show that there was no wilful or deliberate attempt to violate the Court order. No doubt, it would have been certainly more appropriate to apprise the Court on this development and seek modification. On the facts of this case we are, however, convinced there was no intentional move to overstep the order of the Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3001/2008

Decided On: 20.07.2017

 Satwant Singh Vs. Malkeet Singh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, JJ.

Citation:AIR 2017 SC 3607

Print Page

Whether public apology is appropriate relief in suit for defamation?

Though in the light of my findings of the plaint not disclosing any cause of action against the defendants No. 2 to 4 also, the other legal questions raised in the order dated 4th January, 2017 pale into insignificance but for the sake of completeness, I may also record that in my opinion, the harm done by defamation being to the reputation of a person, a direction to issue a public apology or a direction to correct the errors, if any, particularly in defamation arising out of libel by media appears to be a more appropriate relief than a relief of monetary damages. Compensation in monetary damages can never set the record straight or restore the damaged reputation caused by a libelous news report. The person aggrieved by a libelous news report having a large circulation can never exactly know who all have had access thereto and cannot possibly go to each and everyone of those persons with the judgment of award of compensation to him. Reputation of an individual is not something which can be measured or equated in money. It is only a written apology contained in the same media which may reach the same people who may have had access to the libelous material earlier published and that alone can restore the reputation.

27. Not only so, award of damages, particularly in large amounts, against media houses may also have a chilling effect on the media. In some cases, payment of such amount of compensation, if unable to afford, may compel the media to shut down or may make the media over conscious and thereby fail in its duty to report news on contemporaneous subjects of public interest.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.)

Tosiba Appliances Co. Pvt. Ltd. 

v.

Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba & Ors. 

CS(OS) No. 2356/1998

Decided on May 1, 2017

Citation:2017 SCC OnLine Del 8104

Print Page

Whether third party interest created after passing of order remains valid?

 On consideration of various aspects, we are satisfied that there has been a wilful and deliberate violation of this Court's order. We, therefore, in exercise of the court's jurisdiction underArticle 129 of the Constitution of India impose exemplary cost of Rs.2,00,000/- on each of the contemnors to be deposited to the registry of the High Court within a period of eight weeks. On deposit being made, the amount shall be transferred to the National Legal Services Authority. In case of non payment, the contemnors shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. Any third party right created after order dated 19.3.2007 in SLP No. 19924 of 2006 is of no consequence and stands set aside.
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

C.Elumalai & Ors vs A.G.L. Irudayaraj & Anr on 20 March, 2009

Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Ashok Kumar Ganguly

Citation:(2009) 4SCC213:AIR 2009 SC2214

Print Page

When court should not accept apology tendered in case of contempt of court?

 Clause 1 of Section 12 of the Act and Explanation attached
thereto enables the court to remit the punishment awarded for
committing the contempt of court on apology being made to the
satisfaction of the court. However, an apology should not be rejected
merely on the ground that it is qualified or tempered at a belated stage
if the accused makes it bona fide. A conduct which abuses and makes
a mockery of the judicial process of the court is to be dealt with iron
hands and no person can tinker with it to prevent, prejudice, obstructed
or interfere with the administration of justice. There can be cases where
the wisdom of rendering an apology dawns only at a later stage.
Undoubtedly, an apology cannot be a defence, a justification, or an
appropriate punishment for an act which tantamounts to contempt of
court. An apology can be accepted in case where the conduct for which
the apology is given is such that it can be “ignored without
compromising the dignity of the court”, or it is intended to be the
evidence of real contrition. It should be sincere. Apology cannot be
accepted in case it is hollow; there is no remorse; no regret; no
repentance, or if it is only a device to escape the rigour of the law. Such
an apology can merely be termed as “paper apology”.
14. In L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1984 SC 1374, this court
noted that it cannot subscribe to the 'slap-say sorry- and forget'
school of thought in administration of contempt jurisprudence.
Saying 'sorry' does not make the slapper poorer.
(See also: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot & Anr.,
AIR 2006 SC 2007)
So an apology should not be “paper apology” and expression of
sorrow should come from the heart and not from the pen; for it is one
thing to 'say' sorry, it is another to 'feel' sorry.
15. An apology for criminal contempt of court must be offered at
the earliest since a belated apology hardly shows the “contrition which
is the essence of the purging of contempt”. Of course, an apology must
be offered and that too clearly and at the earliest opportunity. However,
even if the apology is not belated but the court finds it to be without
real contrition and remorse, and finds that it was merely tendered as a
weapon of defence, the Court may refuse to accept it. If the apology is
offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to
impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a
cringing coward.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 OF 2010
Bal Kishan Giri 
Versus
State of U.P. 
Dated:May 28, 2014

Print Page