Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Shri Damodar Sadashiv Agre, filed a contempt petition (Contempt Petition No.29 of 2004) alleging non-compliance of an order passed by the Bombay High Court on 12 June 2003. The contempt petition was dismissed on 29 June 2004 for non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel and after hearing the respondents, the Court found no willful disobedience and that the order had been complied with. The applicant then filed the present Miscellaneous Civil Application No.360 of 2004 seeking restoration of the contempt petition. The applicant's counsel argued that the matter was listed for admission and he could not attend due to being engaged before a Division Bench. The respondents opposed restoration, citing the decision in Panjabrao Sadashiorao Wankhede v. Rajeev Agrawal, 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 1047, which held that once contempt proceedings are dropped, they cannot be restored. The Court considered the scheme of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, particularly Section 12, and the principle of double jeopardy. It held that restoration of a contempt petition would expose the alleged contemner to punishment again, akin to autrefois acquit. The Court also noted that the earlier dismissal was not merely for default but after considering the merits, as the Court had found compliance. Therefore, the application for restoration was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Restoration of Contempt Petition - Dismissal of Contempt Petition - Once contempt proceedings are dropped or dismissed, they cannot be restored as it would amount to double jeopardy under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The Court held that the principle of autrefois acquit applies and restoration is not tenable (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a contempt petition dismissed for non-prosecution or on merits can be restored by way of a miscellaneous civil application.
Final Decision
The Miscellaneous Civil Application No.360 of 2004 for restoration of Contempt Petition No.29 of 2004 is dismissed.
Law Points
- Contempt proceedings cannot be restored after dismissal
- principle of autrefois acquit applies
- Section 12 Contempt of Courts Act
- 1971
- Section 256 CrPC
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (12) 113
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.360 OF 2004 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.29 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2377 OF 1999
Shri V.S. Kukday for Applicant/Petitioner, Shri S.A. Gordey for Respondents No.1 and 2
Shri Damodar Sadashiv Agre
Mr. K.K. Prasad, Mr. N. Reddy, Union of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Application for restoration of contempt petition dismissed for non-prosecution and on merits.
Remedy Sought
Restoration of Contempt Petition No.29 of 2004 which was dismissed on 29 June 2004.
Filing Reason
The applicant's counsel could not appear on the date of hearing due to being engaged before a Division Bench, leading to dismissal of the contempt petition.
Previous Decisions
Contempt Petition No.29 of 2004 was dismissed on 29 June 2004 after hearing respondents and finding no willful disobedience and that the order had been complied with.
Issues
Whether a contempt petition dismissed for non-prosecution or on merits can be restored.
Whether restoration of contempt proceedings would violate the principle of double jeopardy under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant: Counsel could not attend due to being before Division Bench; matter was listed for admission and respondents were expected to seek time.
Respondents: Petition was dismissed after considering compliance; restoration is not tenable as per Panjabrao Wankhede case; restoration would amount to double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi
Once contempt proceedings are dropped or dismissed, they cannot be restored because restoration would expose the alleged contemner to punishment again, violating the principle of autrefois acquit and double jeopardy under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Judgment Excerpts
Once the contempt proceedings were dropped for any reason whatsoever, they could not be restored.
The restoration of a petition would amount to a type of double jeopardy.
Procedural History
The applicant filed Contempt Petition No.29 of 2004 alleging non-compliance of an order dated 12 June 2003. The contempt petition was dismissed on 29 June 2004 for non-appearance and after hearing respondents. The applicant then filed the present Miscellaneous Civil Application No.360 of 2004 seeking restoration.
Acts & Sections
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 12
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 256
