Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dealt with two criminal references under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, made by the Principal District Judge and Sessions Judge, Sangli. The references arose from contempt proceedings initiated against Sunil Sumatilal Doshi (contemnor no.1) and Raosaheb Mahavir Chimanna (contemnor no.2) based on applications (Exhibits 25 and 27) filed by contemnor no.2 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 44 and 45 of 2009. These appeals challenged a conviction order dated 13.1.2009 passed by the 4th Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangli, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the accused were sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay Rs. 9,00,000 as compensation. The applications sought transfer of the appeals to another Sessions Judge, alleging bias. The court examined whether such applications constituted criminal contempt. The court noted that the applications were made in the course of judicial proceedings and did not contain language that scandalized or lowered the authority of the court. The court held that the references were not maintainable as the allegations did not amount to contempt. Consequently, both criminal references were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Transfer Application Alleging Bias - Section 15(2) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The court considered whether applications filed by a complainant seeking transfer of criminal appeals to another judge, on grounds of bias, amounted to criminal contempt. The court held that the applications, though containing allegations against the judge, were made in the course of judicial proceedings and did not scandalize or lower the authority of the court. The references were dismissed as the allegations were not made with intent to interfere with the administration of justice. (Paras 1-3)
B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Conviction and Sentence - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The underlying criminal appeals arose from convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation. The complainant's transfer applications were filed pending these appeals. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the filing of transfer applications by a complainant in criminal appeals, alleging bias against the presiding judge, constitutes criminal contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Final Decision
Both Criminal Reference No.1 of 2009 and Criminal Reference No.2 of 2009 are dismissed.
Law Points
- Contempt of Court
- Transfer Application
- Allegation of Bias
- Section 15(2) Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 389 Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 63
Criminal Reference No.1 of 2009 with Criminal Reference No.2 of 2009
Mrs M.M. Deshmukh, APP, for the petitioner; Mr P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel, with S.S. Patwardhan for respondent no.1; Mr I.M. Khairdi, for respondent no.2
Shri Sunil S. Doshi and Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal references under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, arising from contempt proceedings initiated against contemnors for filing transfer applications alleging bias against the presiding judge.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (State) sought action against the respondents for contempt of court.
Filing Reason
The references were made by the learned Principal District Judge and Sessions Judge, Sangli, based on applications filed by contemnor no.2 seeking transfer of criminal appeals to another judge, which allegedly contained contemptuous allegations.
Previous Decisions
The learned Judge had initiated contempt proceedings against the contemnors and made references to the High Court.
Issues
Whether the filing of transfer applications by a complainant in criminal appeals, alleging bias against the presiding judge, constitutes criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Submissions/Arguments
The learned APP argued that the applications contained allegations that scandalized the court and lowered its authority.
The senior counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the applications were made in the course of judicial proceedings and did not amount to contempt.
Ratio Decidendi
The filing of transfer applications seeking recusal of a judge on grounds of bias, made in the course of judicial proceedings, does not per se constitute criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, unless the language used scandalizes or lowers the authority of the court with intent to interfere with the administration of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
These two criminal references under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”) are made by the learned Principal District Judge and Sessions Judge, Sangli, (for short, “the learned Judge”) vide his Judgment and order dated 16.9.2009.
The contempt proceedings were initiated in view of the contents of the applications - Exhibits 25 and 27 in Criminal Appeal Nos 44 and 45 of 2009.
Procedural History
The learned Principal District Judge and Sessions Judge, Sangli, initiated contempt proceedings against contemnors based on applications filed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 44 and 45 of 2009, and made references to the Bombay High Court under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, vide order dated 16.9.2009. The High Court heard the references and dismissed them on 21.4.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 15(2)
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 389
