Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a suo motu contempt reference made by the District and Sessions Judge, Solapur, against Shri E.N. Sakore, a Police Sub-Inspector at Vairag Police Station. The background involved one Ramchandra Genaba Devkar, a Junior Engineer, who apprehended arrest in Crime No. 18/92 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. He filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 97 of 1993 before the District Court for anticipatory bail on 15 February 1993. On 18 February 1993, the court granted ad-interim anticipatory bail till 20 February 1993, directing release on personal bond of Rs. 2,000 with one surety in the event of arrest. The Public Prosecutor opposed the plea. The ad-interim order was subsequently extended up to 22 February 1993. On 20 February 1993 at 8:30 p.m., the respondent police officer arrested the applicant despite the order being operative. The applicant was produced on 21 February 1993 and remanded to police custody until 24 February 1993. Upon being informed, the District Court released the applicant on bail on 22 February 1993 and initiated contempt proceedings against the respondent. The respondent appeared and contested the matter, filing affidavits. The District Court found a prima facie case and referred the matter to the High Court, which registered Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 116 of 1995. The main legal issue was whether the respondent had knowledge of the extended ad-interim order and wilfully disobeyed it when arresting the applicant. The applicant's side argued that the advocate had shown a copy of the extended order to the respondent at the police station around 7:00 p.m. before the arrest, supported by affidavits of the applicant and his brother. The respondent denied knowledge of the extension, contending that no proper service was effected. The High Court analyzed the evidence, noting that the advocate did not file a contemporaneous affidavit, and the record did not confirm service of the extended order on the respondent. The court held that contempt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of wilful disobedience with knowledge. Due to inconsistencies and lack of clear evidence that the extended order was known to the respondent, the court concluded that the respondent could not be held guilty. The court also refrained from examining the second charge of refusal to accept the show cause notice as it became irrelevant. Accordingly, the contempt rule was discharged, and the respondent was not held in contempt.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience of Court Order - Requirement of Knowledge and Proof - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (applicable principles) - The contemnor was charged with contempt for arresting an accused despite an ad-interim anticipatory bail order. The court held that to establish contempt, it must be proved that the contemnor had knowledge of the order and wilfully disobeyed it. On facts, the evidence did not clearly establish that the contemnor was served with the extended order or had actual knowledge of its continuation; therefore, contempt was not made out. Held that contempt rule stands discharged. (Paras 8-15) B) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Ad-interim Order - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 438 - The District Court granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant on 18 February 1993 and extended it till 22 February 1993. The court noted that such an order prohibits arrest. However, the investigating officer arrested the applicant on 20 February 1993. The court examined whether this was in defiance of the order. The court concluded that due to lack of proper communication of the extension, the arrest could not be said to be contemptuous. (Paras 1-2, 14-15) C) Evidence - Affidavits - Credibility and Burden of Proof - Standard of Proof in Contempt Cases - The court scrutinized the affidavits of the applicant, his brother, and the advocate, noting inconsistencies such as the advocate's absence of a sworn statement at the material time and the lack of a contemporaneous document evidencing service of the order. The court held that the burden is on the prosecution to prove contempt beyond reasonable doubt, and on the facts, the evidence was insufficient. (Paras 13-15) D) Contempt of Court - Aggravating Circumstances - Refusal to Accept Show Cause Notice - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - The second alleged contempt was the contemnor's refusal to accept the show cause notice issued by the District Court. The court observed that even if such conduct was improper, it would not alter the finding on the principal charge, and the court did not deem it necessary to examine the issue separately given the discharge of the main contempt. (Para 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent police officer committed contempt of court by arresting the applicant despite an ad-interim anticipatory bail order, and whether refusal to accept show cause notice aggravated the contempt
Final Decision
The contempt rule is discharged. The respondent is not held guilty of contempt of court.
Law Points
- Contempt requires wilful disobedience with knowledge of the order
- burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt lies on party alleging contempt
- service of order must be established
- mistake or negligence does not constitute contempt
- arrest in defiance of anticipatory bail order without knowledge not contemptuous
