Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a writ petition filed by the respondents in the Bombay High Court seeking refund of Rs.2,60,144-70 allegedly paid as countervailing/additional customs duty. The Customs Department filed an affidavit stating that the writ petitioners had made a false claim and had not paid any duty; the refund was claimed on the basis of forged documents. The High Court issued notices to the respondents to show cause why a complaint should not be filed against them under Sections 191, 192, 209 and 210 of the Indian Penal Code, and also why proceedings for contempt should not be initiated. After considering the show cause, the High Court directed that a complaint be filed against the respondents but directed that no action be taken under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The State of Maharashtra challenged the dropping of the contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is maintainable against an order dropping or refusing to initiate contempt proceedings. The State contended that the contempt proceeding should not have been dropped. The respondents argued that the High Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution only when it imposes a punishment for contempt; since no punishment was imposed, no appeal lay under Section 19(1). The Supreme Court examined Section 19(1) and held that an appeal lies as of right only from an order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The expression 'any order' must be read with 'decision', and both must be in the nature of punishment for contempt. Reading 'any order' independently would lead to appeals against interlocutory orders, which would be a ridiculous result. Contempt proceeding is not a dispute between two parties but primarily between the court and the person alleged to have committed contempt; the person who brings the contempt to the court's notice is not a prosecutor but assists the court. The court relied on Baradakanta Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Misra and D.N. Taneja v. Bhaian Lal, holding that where a court rejects a motion and declines to initiate a proceeding for contempt, it refuses to assume or exercise jurisdiction to punish for contempt, and such a decision does not fall within Section 19(1). The court also noted that Article 215 confers on the High Court the power to punish for contempt of itself, and when the High Court does not impose any punishment, it does not exercise that jurisdiction. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 further indicated that the reliefs provided are for the person who has been proceeded against. However, the court observed that a person aggrieved by the dropping or refusal can invoke the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, and in suitable cases the Supreme Court can set aside the High Court's order. On the facts, the Supreme Court found that since the High Court had already directed filing of a criminal complaint and thought it proper not to pursue the contempt proceeding, no interference was warranted under Article 136. The Supreme Court accordingly held that no appeal under Section 19(1) was maintainable and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Appeal Maintainability - Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Appeal lies only against order or decision in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt - The High Court directed filing of criminal complaint but dropped contempt proceedings; State appealed under Section 19(1); Supreme Court held that 'any order' must be read with 'decision' and both must be in nature of punishment for contempt, otherwise interlocutory orders would be appealable - Held no appeal maintainable against order dropping contempt proceedings. B) Contempt of Court - Nature of Jurisdiction and Remedy - Article 215 and Article 136 of Constitution of India - Contempt proceeding primarily between court and contemnor; High Court derives jurisdiction from Article 215; when no punishment imposed, jurisdiction not exercised - Person aggrieved by dropping or refusal can invoke Supreme Court under Article 136; on facts no interference warranted - Held appeal dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal is maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against an order dropping contempt proceedings or refusing to initiate contempt proceedings; and whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution in the facts of the case.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No costs. The Supreme Court held that no appeal is maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against an order dropping or refusing to initiate contempt proceedings because such an order is not in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The Court also declined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- An appeal under Section 19(1) of Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971 lies only against an order or decision of High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt
- an order dropping or refusing to initiate contempt proceedings is not an order in exercise of jurisdiction to punish
- the expression 'any order' must be read with 'decision' and both must be in the nature of punishment for contempt
- contempt proceeding is primarily between court and alleged contemnor and informant is not prosecutor
- High Court's jurisdiction to punish for contempt flows from Article 215
- person aggrieved by dropping or refusal can invoke Supreme Court under Article 136
