Anup Bhushan Vohra vs R.G., H.C.Of Judicature At Calcutta

Anup Bhushan Vohra .... Appellant(s)

Versus

The Registrar General,

High Court of Judicature at Calcutta .... Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 340, 345, 346, 358, 362,

388, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398,

399 and 400 of 2007

J U D G M E N T

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) These appeals, under Section 19 of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), are filed

against the common judgment and order dated 02.03.2007

1

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature

at Calcutta in Suo Moto Contempt Motion being Crl.C.P.No.1

of 2007 with C.R.R. No. 187 of 2007 whereby the High Court

found all the appellants guilty of criminal contempt and

sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of

six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and, in default of

payment of fine within a period of one month, to further

undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2) Brief facts:

a) A Committee was constituted by some local persons, who

were active in public life, along with lawyers at Jalpaiguri

named "Circuit Bench `O' Sarbik Unnayan Dabi Adyay

Samannya Committee, Jalpaiguri" (hereinafter referred to as

"the Committee"). The Committee had passed a resolution for

the formation of a High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and

in order to achieve the said purpose to stage Satyagrah in

front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. The Members of the

Committee put their resolution into action on 15.12.2006 and

started agitation outside the main gate of the District Court

premises and put up a rostrum there on which a number of

2

persons started sitting in Satyagrah. They prevented the

Judicial Officers including the District Judge, Jalpaiguri to

enter into the Court premises from that day. In order to

overcome the said situation, the District Judge drew attention

of such fact to the Inspector-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station,

Jalpaiguri for extending police help, but no action was taken.

Subsequently, the District Judge brought the matter to the

notice of the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta

for taking necessary steps.

b) After taking note of the situation, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.

S. Sirpurkar, the then Chief Justice of the High Court,

instructed the District Judge through the Registrar General to

seek necessary help and protection from the Superintendent of

Police, Jalpaiguri to take immediate steps so that the Judicial

Officers could enter the Court premises and attend the judicial

work. The District Judge conveyed the said decision of the

High Court to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri but

failed to get any response from him. Subsequently, he

approached the District Magistrate but no action was taken

from his end also. Failing to get any response either from the

3

Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri,

the District Judge sent a note to the then Chief Justice of the

Calcutta High Court who gave direction over phone to the

Director General of Police to take effective steps without any

further delay. The Director General of Police gave assurance

that he would take up the matter with the Home Secretary,

Government of West Bengal and also suggested the Registrar

General to inform the District Judge to write to the District

Magistrate, Jalpaiguri to take steps for ensuring proper

functioning of the Court with a copy to the Superintendent of

Police, Jalpaiguri. On 12.01.2007, the District Judge again

wrote to the District Magistrate. In spite of that, no effective

development had taken place and the Judicial Officers and the

District Judge were unable to enter the court building.

c) In view of the above situation, the District Judge sent a

Fax message to the Registrar General of the High Court

requesting him to take appropriate instructions and

directions. On the basis of the said information, on

15.01.2007, the then Acting Chief Justice of the High Court

sitting in a Bench issued two Suo Motu Rules of Contempt,

4

one, against the 16 persons actively associated with the

aforesaid Committee to show cause as to why they are creating

impediments in functioning of the judiciary in the District

Court by obstructing Judicial Officers from entering into the

Court premises and the other upon the Director General of

Police, Government of West Bengal, the District Magistrate,

Jalpaiguri, the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri and the

Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri to show

cause as to why they remained silent spectators in spite of

repeated directions.

d) On the same day, the Committee withdrew the Satyagrah

and removed the rostrum and cleared the entry gate. In

response to the Rules, the appellants herein filed their

affidavits before the High Court. After examining the

appellants herein, the High Court, by impugned judgment

dated 02.03.2007, imposed simple imprisonment for a term of

six months with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of

payment of fine within a period of one month, to further

undergo imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the order

5

of the High Court, the appellants/contemnors have filed these

appeals under Section 19 of the Act.

3) Heard M/s Mukul Rohtagi, Kalyan Bandopadhyay, R.

Venkataramani, learned senior counsel, P.C. Sen, Tara

Chandra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.

Pradip Kr. Ghosh and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior

counsel for the respondent-High Court.

4) Since we are going to dispose of all the 18 appeals by this

judgment, the following details pertaining to these appeals are

relevant:

S.No. Name Age Profession Case Number

(Crl. Appeal)

1. Sri Mukulesh Sanyal (Dead) 84 Editor of a No. 395/2007

local weekly

2. Sri Chitta Dey 84 Trade No. 390/2007

Unionist

3. Sri Benoy Kanta Bhowmic 83 Advocate No. 394/2007

4. Sri Samarendra Prosad 78 Business No. 396/2007

Biswas

5. Smt. Pratima Bagchi (Dead) 74 Teacher No. 399/2007

(Retd.)

6. Sri Jiten Das 73 Ex.M.P. No. 362/2007

(Retd.

Professor)

7. Sri Sadhan Bose 73 Business No. 398/2007

8. Sri Amal Roy 64 Political No. 392/2007

Worker

9. Sri Debaprasad Roy 63 M.L.A. No. 358/2007

10. Sri Anup Bhushan Vohra 63 DGP, W.B. No. 339/2007

(D.G.) (Retd.)

11. Sri Prasanta Chandra 58 Dy. S.P., No. 346/2007

(Inspector-in-Charge) Murshidabad

6

12. Sri Subhas Kumar Dutta 57 Teacher No. 393/2007

13. Sri Rabindra Narayan 57 Business No. 400/2007

Chowdhury

14. Sri Somnath Pal 46 Business No. 388/2007

15. Sri Sanjoy Chakraborty 44 Secretary of No. 397/2007

an NGO

16. Sri Prabal Raha 40 Social No. 391/2007

worker

17. Sri Tripurari (S.P.) 39 D.C. Central No. 345/2007

18. Sri R. Ranjit 38 D.M., No. 340/2007

Jalpaiguri,

W.B.

5) Since all the appellants were proceeded for criminal

contempt under the Act, it is useful to refer the relevant

provisions applicable for disposal of these appeals. Section 2

(c) of the Act defines "criminal contempt" which reads as

under:

"2.(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by

words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible

representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of

any other act whatsoever which-

(i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to

lower the authority of, any court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due

course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends

to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other

manner;"

Section 12 of the Act provides punishment for contempt of

court. The procedure to be followed has been dealt with in the

Calcutta High Court Contempt of Courts Rules, 1975. It is

7

settled law that the law of contempt must be strictly

interpreted and complied with before any person can be

committed for contempt.

6) In Muthu Karuppan vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & Anr.,

AIR 2011 SC 1645 = (2011) 5 SCC 496, this Court, while

considering the criminal contempt held that the court should

be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the

charge and further held that the punishment cannot be

imposed on mere probabilities and the court can not punish

the alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on

conjectures and surmises. How the criminal contempt has to

be proceeded with has been explained in para 9, which reads

as follows:

"9. The contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in

nature, burden and standard of proof is the same as

required in criminal cases. The charges have to be framed as

per the statutory rules framed for the purpose and proved

beyond reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged

contemnor is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Law does not

permit imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings

on mere probabilities, equally, the court cannot punish the

alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on

conjectures and surmises. As observed above, the contempt

proceeding being quasi-criminal in nature require strict

adherence to the procedure prescribed under the rules

applicable in such proceedings."

8

In para 23, it was further held that any deviation from the

prescribed Rules should not be accepted or condoned lightly

and must be deemed to be fatal to the proceedings taken to

initiate action for contempt.

7) With this background, let us analyse whether the

appellants have committed criminal contempt in terms of

Section 2(c) of the Act and whether the High Court is justified

in imposing simple imprisonment for a term of six months

with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and, in default, to further

undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

8) The impugned order of the Division Bench shows that

these appellants were punished for criminal contempt not only

on the ground that they prevented the Judicial Officers

including the District Judge and other staff members from

entering into the District Court at Jalpaiguri, but also on the

ground of alleged serious lapses/inaction on their part. It is

useful to refer the findings recorded by the Division Bench

regarding the role and part played by the appellants which are

as under:-

"We, therefore, unhesitantly come to the conclusion

that the Director-General of the Police, the District

9

Magistrate of the District, the District Superintendent of the

Police and the Inspector-in-charge of the local Police Station

have committed not only the Criminal Contempt of the

Judges Court in the District of Jalpaiguri by deliberately

taking no action against the agitators resulting in

interference with due Administration of Justice in the said

District and at the same time the Director-General of Police

has in addition to that also committed further contempt of

this Court by disobeying the order of the then Chief Justice

to take immediate step for restoration of the function of

Judiciary in the said District.

We disbelieve the statements of the three Officers of

the District Administration that the learned District Judge

never sought for Police assistance and on the other hand,

supported the agitators. In his affidavit, the District

Magistrate was constrained to admit that at least on

January 10, 2007 the learned District Judge-in-Charge in

writing asked for his assistance but in spite of such fact, he

did not find any time to take appropriate step till January

15, 2007, the day on which we issued the Rules and directed

the Chief Secretary to take appropriate step for restoration of

the functions of Judiciary in the District. Moreover, the fact

that a G.D. was lodged complaining obstruction to the entry

of the employees of the Court was sufficient for taking action

to see the Judiciary could function in the District in

accordance with the Constitution of India and further

request for Police help at the instance of the learned District

Judge was unnecessary. The justification sought to be given

that the agitation was peaceful was insignificant in the fact

of the present case in view of the fact that the question of

"breach of peace" arises if there is a resistance at the

instance of an opposition group. The Judges are not

expected to wrestle with those agitators by taking the law in

their own hands of the purpose of entering the Court

premises. They complied with the law of the land by drawing

attention of the local Police by lodging a G.D. through an

employee of the Court and at the same time, it has been well

established from the materials on record that the local

administration was quite alive to the situation that due to

the purported "Satyagraha" by staging agitation and raising

a rostrum at the main entrance gate of the Court premises,

there was interference with due Administration of Justice

and in such circumstances, it was the duty of the local

administration to take step of their own once they found

commission of a cognizable offence."

1

9) As stated in the earlier paras, a Committee constituted of

some local persons, who were active in public life, along with

the lawyers at Jalpaiguri, had passed certain resolutions to

stage Satyagrah for the formation of High Court Circuit Bench

in front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. As a follow-up

action, the Members of the Committee put their resolution into

action on 15.12.2006 outside one of the two gates of the

District Court premises that is the main gate and put up a

rostrum there on which a number of persons started sitting in

Satyagrah.

10) It is the stand of the police that on being aware of the

said resolution of the Committee, on 15.12.2006, a police

picket consisting of three officers and four constables was

deployed under Sub-inspector Dilip Kumar Sen at the place of

Satyagrah to watch and monitor the law and order situation.

It was pointed out that the Sub-inspector Dilip Kumar Sen

noted the above details in the General Diary (GD) of Kotwali

P.S., under GDE No. 899 dated 15.12.2006 recording that the

Judicial Officers and the staff of the District Court had arrived

at the court premises, but they were persuaded by the

1

members of the Committee not to enter into the Court. The

officer has also recorded that the Judicial Officers did not ask

the police for help to enter into the court. Mr. Rohtagi, learned

senior counsel appearing for the appellant- Anup Bhushan

Vohra, former Director General of Police in Criminal Appeal

No. 339 of 2007 has brought to our notice a true extract of GD

entry made on 15.12.2006 under GDE No. 899 which reads as

under:-

"It is important to add here that each of the Judges and

Magistrates (total of 11) of the said District Court are

provided with one armed policemen and two other security

guards as normal security to enable them to fulfill the duties

of their office: i.e. the Judges and Magistrates of the District

Court always had 27 security guards including 9 armed

guards."

The further information relates to GD entry made on

19.12.2006 under GDE No. 1152, in which the S.I. detailed for

duty at the District Court recorded that with force he was

present at the main gate of the court premises and at 1050

hrs. when some of the Judicial Officers had arrived at the

main gate of the District Court, they were requested "with

folded hands" by the agitating Members of the Committee not

to enter into the court. The Judicial Officers, thereafter,

returned back. The S.I. and his force were standing at the

1

spot, but there was no order/request by the Judicial Officers

for help to enter into the court. It is also pointed out that in

all those days, there was no pushing or cajoling, no

threatening gestures made, no law and order problem and no

circumstance was created for the police to interfere using

force.

11) Apart from the GD entries made in those dates, similar

effect GD entries were made at the local police station by the

concerned police officials who were detailed with force for duty

at the District Court on 22.12.2006, 26.12.2006, 27.12.2006,

31.12.2006, 02.01.2007 and 05.01.2007 under GDE Nos.

1338, 1620, 1690, 1916, 91 and 275 respectively. All those

GD entries are placed before us in the form of annexures. By

pointing out these details, learned senior counsel appearing

for the appellants pointed out that there was no intimation by

the High Court till 05.01.2007. They also highlighted that at

no point of time, there was any law and order problem and

there was no coercion exercised by any of those conducting

Satyagrah. On every single day from 15.12.2006 to

05.01.2007, whenever Judicial Officers of the District Court,

1

Jalpaiguri attempted to enter into the Court premises, they

were requested by the persons sitting in Satyagrah not to

enter the court premises and thereupon the Judges and the

officials and the staff voluntarily complied with and went back.

12) From the materials placed on record, it is seen that only

on 05.01.2007, the Registrar General of the Calcutta High

Court, for the first time, spoke over phone to Shri Anup

Bhushan Vohra, DGP to enquire whether he knew about the

problem which was "deteriorating" as no work was taking

place in the Court at Jalpaiguri. In the affidavit filed by Mr.

Vohra, it is stated that the Registrar General then handed over

the phone to the then Chief Justice of the High Court - Hon'ble

Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, who directed him to "keep the

situation under watch". The affidavit further shows that the

appellant Vohra assured the then Hon'ble Chief Justice that

he would speak to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri and

the Home Secretary of the State. According to him, as assured

to the then Chief Justice, he informed both the officers. He

also mentioned that this was not done in writing, but orally

over phone to Mr. Prasad Ray, Home Secretary and Mr.

1

Tripurari, Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri. The assertion

of the DGP in the form of an affidavit shows that there was no

order by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice either on the

administrative side or on the judicial side but only over phone

he was asked to watch the situation and, in turn, he also

assured him as well as intimated the same to the Home

Secretary and Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri. In those

circumstances and in view of the the materials placed by the

DGP, the conclusion of the Division Bench that there was an

"order" by the then Chief Justice is factually incorrect.

13) It is brought to our notice that for the first time, that is,

on 09.01.2007, the District Judge communicated to the

Registrar General of the High Court regarding cessation of

work by the Members of the Local Bar Association, Jalpaiguri

and the Committee for Circuit Bench of the High Court at

Calcutta. The contents of the said letter are also relevant,

which reads as under:

"To

The Registrar General,

High Court, Appellate Side,

Calcutta.

Dated : the 9th January, 2007.

1

Sub: Cease work by the members of the Local Bar

Association, Jalpaiguri and Samannyay Committee for

Circuit Bench of the Hon'ble Court at Calcutta.

Sir,

With due respect, I am to inform that today i.e., on

9.1.07 I, along with all Judicial Officers, had been to the

Court but at the entrance gate of the Court premises we

were obstructed to enter into the premises.

I held discussion with the agitating members and

insisted that we should be allowed to enter into the premises

for smooth functioning of the judicial administration but it

was impressed by the agitating members of the Samannyay

Committee, mainly, along with member of local bar that

when the door for discussion is open we should

communicate the Hon'ble Court that the impasse can only

be resolved by discussion from and on behalf of the Hon'ble

Court. The agitating members did not agree to my proposal

to allow us to enter into the premises

The recent resolution, enclosed herewith, will show

that they have taken up different agitation programs till

15.1.07 copy of which is enclosed herewith. When

persuasion failed, we have come to the chamber and office of

the District Judge at his bungalow where all the members of

the office staff have also came.

This is for your information and we are soliciting

necessary instruction from your honour's end.

Yours faithfully,

(S. Bhattacharjee)

Add District Judge, 1st Court and

District Judge-in-Charge,

Jalpaiguri.

Memo No. 17/G Dated: 9.1.07.

Copy forwarded to the Superintendent of Police,

Jalpaiguri, for information and necessary action.

Sd/-(S. Bhattacharjee)

1

Add District Judge, 1st Court and

District Judge-in-Charge,

Jalpaiguri."

It was highlighted that no immediate response was received by

the District Judge from the Registrar General, particularly, as

to the contents of his letter.

14) However, on 10.01.2007, it was pointed out that for the

first time the Addl. District Judge/District Judge-in-Charge

Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, wrote directly to the District Magistrate

Mr. R. Ranjit (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2007)

requesting him to look into the matter and make endeavour to

resolve the crisis so that the Judges could enter into the court

premises to discharge their functions. The GD entry made on

10.01.2007 under No. 614 recorded that police force was

present at the main gate of the District Court from 1000 hrs.

to 1300 hrs. and the Judicial Officers had come in some

vehicles and after talking to the Members of the Committee,

who with folded hands requested them not to enter into the

court, they left the place. It was emphasised that even on this

day, there was no request from the Judicial Officers to the

police to help them enter into the court.

1

15) The GD entry made on 13.01.2007 under No. 795 was

pressed into service which shows that a strong police

arrangement was made at the District Court where Shri T.K.

Das Addl. Superintendent of Police (HQ), Shri Swapan Kumar

Das, Dy. Superintendent of Police (HQ) and Shri David Ivan

Lepcha had supervised the duty and Shri Ashok Das,

Executive Magistrate, was also present. It was pointed out

that in the afternoon of 13.01.2007, the District Magistrate,

the Superintendent of Police and other officers convened a

meeting at the Circuit House with the Members of the

Committee and had told them in no uncertain terms that

administration will not wait for any "amicable settlement" any

further and would resort to applying force on 15.01.2007 to

ensure proper functioning of the court. This was conveyed

over phone to the District Judge and it was also informed to

him that heavy police arrangement would again be made on

15.01.2007 onwards to ensure that Judges and Magistrates

may enter into the court without any hindrance. This was

also stated in the GD Entry No. 961 dated 15.01.2007. When

the Addl. District Judge/District Judge-in-Charge arrived at

1

the court gate at 1030 hrs., he was requested by the Addl. SP

to enter into the court premises, but after seeing a large

gathering of the Members of the Committee and their

sympathisers, the District Judge decided not to enter the court

and returned back. It was recorded in the said GD entry that

the Members of the Committee and their sympathisers were

successfully persuaded to remove the rostrum from the gate of

the court premises, which they themselves removed. The

court gate was opened by 1530 hrs., and the District Judge

was also intimated about the same. Apart from the above

information, it was also pointed out that between 15.12.2006,

the day from which the Committee started agitation

to15.01.2007 when they called off the agitation, all

bail/custody matters were dealt with by the

Judges/Magistrates at their official residences in Jalpaiguri,

arrested accused persons were produced by the police before

them and in total 192 such cases were dealt with by the

Magistrates at their residences during the said period, namely,

15.12.2006 to 15.01.2007.

1

16) Apart from the above details, Mr. Vohra has also

highlighted that he was informed of the importance of the

situation only on 05.01.2007 and no specific

information/report was received before this date from any

State or Central Government Agency or officer about the same.

He asserted that he acted promptly on or after 05.01.2007,

briefing the Home Secretary of the State, Superintendent of

Police, Jalpaiguri.

17) In the meantime, it was pointed out that the then Chief

Justice of the High Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar

was elevated to the Supreme Court and he took oath on

12.01.2007 and on 15.01.2007, the then Acting Chief Justice -

Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya, sitting in a Bench Suo

Motu issued two Rules to the following effect.

"The learned Registrar General of this Court has drawn

attention of this Court to the fact that due to agitation

started by the "Circuit Bench 'O' Sarbik Unnyayan Dabi

Adyay Samannaya Committee, Jalpaiguri," the Judicial

Officers in the District of Jalpaiguri including the learned

District Judge, Jalpaiguri, are unable to enter into the Court

premises from December 15, 2006.

Office of the learned District Judge immediately drew

attention of such fact to the Inspector-in-charge, Kotwali

Police Station, Jalpaiguri Sadar, but no action was taken.

Subsequently, the learned District Judge brought the matter

to the notice of the learned Registrar General of this Court,

who in terms of the order by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice

2

of this Court, instructed the learned District Judge to ask

the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri to take immediate

action, so that the Judicial Officers can enter into the Court

premises for doing their duties.

Although the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri

conveyed the decision of this Court to the Superintendent of

Police, Jalpaiguri, so that the Judicial Officers can enter into

the Court building and function, the Superintendent of

Police, Jalpaiguri paid deaf ears to the request of the learned

District Judge. Subsequently, the learned District Judge was

directed to approach the District Magistrate of the District,

so that the judiciary in the District can function. In spite of

such communication, no action was taken from the end of

the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.

It appears from the note given by the learned Registrar

General of this Court, that on January 5, 2007, the then

Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court directed the Director

General of Police, West Bengal over phone to ensure proper

functioning of the Jalpaiguri Court by taking effective steps

without further delay and as a follow up action, the learned

Registrar General also talked to the Director General of

Police, West Bengal and enquired as to what effective steps

had been taken for bringing back the normal situation, so

that the learned District Judge's Court could function

properly.

The Director General of Police, however, informed the

learned Registrar General of this Court that he would take

up the matter with the Home Secretary, Government of West

Bengal and in the meantime, the learned District Judge,

Jalpaiguri should be asked to write to the District

Magistrate, Jalpaiguri requesting him to take steps for

ensuring proper functioning of the Courts in Jalpaiguri with

a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri.

As pointed out earlier, in spite of written

communication given by the learned District Judge to the

District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, till today the Judges in the

District Judge's Court at Jalpaiguri are unable to enter into

the Court building.

It appears from the various papers submitted by the

learned District Judge through fax message to the learned

Registrar General of this Court that the "Circuit Bench 'O'

Sarbik Unnayayan Dabi Adyay Samannaya Committee,

2

Jalpaiguri" took a resolution of obstructing the ingress and

egress to the Court building by various resolutions taken

from time to time. From the resolution allegedly taken on

December 23, 2006 which has been sent to the learned

Registrar General of this Court by the learned District Judge

concerned, it appears that in a meeting held at Nababbari

premises the following persons participated and

unanimously took a resolution to continue with the

agitation:

(1) Sri Mukulesh Sanyal, President;

(2) Sri Sri Jiten Das, Ex. M.P. (C.P.M.);

(3) Sri Sri Debaprasad Roy, M.L.A. (Congress);

(4) Smt. Pratima Bagchi (R.S.P.):

(5) Sri Prabal Saha (Forward Block);

(6) Sri Pabitra Bhattacharyya (C.P.I.);

(7) Sri Somenath Pal (T.M.C.);

(8) Sri Amal Roy (C.P.I.M.L.);

(9) Sri Subhas Kumar Dutta, C.P.I.M.L. (Liberation);

(10) Sri Rabindra Lal Chakraborty (B.J.P.);

(11) Sri Chittaq De (Convenor, Co-ordination Committee of

Plantation Works);

(12) Sri Sadhan Bose (Merchant Association);

(13) Sri Sarnarendra Prasad Biswas (North Bengal Chamber

of Commerce);

(14) Sri Biswajit Das (Federation of Chamber of Commerce,

Siliguri);

(15) Sri Sanjoy Chakraborty (Jalpaiguri Welfare

Organisation).

It further appears from the resolution of the meeting

dated December 18, 2006 of the said "Jalpaiguri 'O' Sarbik

Unnyayan Dabi Adyay Samannaya Committee" that one Sri

2

Benoy Kanta Bhowmick, presided over as President,

supported the said illegal act of the Committee.

In our view, the aforesaid act on the part of those

persons abovenamed, acting on behalf of the said

Committee, has resulted in constitutional breakdown in the

District of Jalpaiguri, as a result, the citizens of Jalpaiguri

District are immensely prejudiced and such act interferes

with and obstructs administration of justice in the said

District.

We are also prima facie convinced that inaction on the

part of the Director General of Police, West Bengal, District

Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, the Superintendent of Police,

Jalpaiguri and I.C., Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri Sadar

amounts to aiding and abetting the members of the said

Committee, as a result of which, the judiciary is unable to

function in that District for the last one month and all those

persons are prima facie guilty of criminal contempt of a

serious nature.

Accordingly, let a Rule of contempt be issued calling

upon all those 15 persons and Sri Benoy Kanta Bhowrnick,

abovenamed, to show cause why they should not be

penalised or otherwise dealt with for committing criminal

contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 by creating impediment in functioning the

judiciary in the District of Jalpaiguri for the last one month

by restraining the Judicial Officers from entering into the

Court building.

Similarly, a Rule be also issued upon the Director

General of Police, West Bengal, District Magistrate,

Jalpaiguri, Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri, Inspector-

in-charge, Kotwali Police Station, Jalpaiguri Sadar to show

cause why they should not be penalised or otherwise dealt

with for aiding and abetting the aforesaid criminal contempt

by remaining as silent spectators in spite of repeated

directions not only given by the learned District Judge of the

District, but also by the learned Registrar General and the

former Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court.

Let these Rules be immediately served upon all the

concerns through the Chief Secretary, Government of West

Bengal by tomorrow.

2 The Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, is

directed to communicate to this Court what action the

District Administration or the State Administration has

taken for removing the impediments creating by those

persons.

Having regard to the serious nature of a criminal

contempt prima facie found by this Court, we direct the

Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal to see that in

course of this day proper step is taken, so that the learned

District Judge and all the Judicial Officers including the staff

of the District Court may enter into the building and

function normally.

The Chief Secretary will further ensure that no

obstruction takes place in the matter of proper functioning of

the Court in any part of the said District.

Office is directed to see that this order is

communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of West

Bengal by 2 p.m. of this day.

Let Rules be also issued by the office in course of this

day.

The Rules are returnable on January 19, 2007 at

10.30 a.m.

On the returnable date, the alleged contemnors above

named are directed to be present in Court at 10.30 a.m."

18) Pursuant to the issuance of the above Rules, the DGP-

Mr. Vohra and other three officials of the State Government

i.e., the District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and

Inspector in-Charge, Kotwali P.S. Jalpaiguri also filed separate

affidavits highlighting their stand. Apart from the affidavit

filed by the Inspector in-Charge of Kotwali P.S., copies of the

2

entries made in the GD (which we referred in the earlier paras)

maintained at the said P.S. were annexed to the affidavit.

19) It is further seen that all the officials including the DGP

were examined by the High Court while hearing the contempt

petition and their depositions were recorded. We were also

taken through their depositions and these were mostly in the

nature of cross-examination. Learned senior counsel

appearing for the DGP has highlighted even the copies of fax

messages sent by the District Judge to the Registrar General

of the High Court on various dates which were supplied to him

after cross examination by the court. Even otherwise, as

rightly pointed out that in none of the fax messages, the

Judges/Magistrates had requested the police for help to

neither enter into the court nor do the fax messages record

that they went back to their residences voluntarily on being

requested by the agitators. The impugned order of the High

Court also shows that apart from the official witnesses, the

other parties were also heard on 16.02.2007 by the Bench and

ultimately the impugned order was passed on 02.03.2007

convicting the appellants for criminal contempt of court and

2

sentencing them to simple imprisonment for a term of six

months with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.

20) Though the High Court has concluded that the above-

mentioned government officials had "aided and abetted" the

perpetrators to agitation, as rightly pointed out by the learned

senior counsel for the appellants, there is no material/basis

for such conclusion. We have already pointed out that from

the GD entries on various dates, i.e., from 15.12.2006 till

15.01.2007, on all working days, whenever the Judicial

Officers reach the main gate of the District Court, the

organisers made a request with folded hands not to enter into

the court premises and by their persuasion, the Judicial

Officers returned to their homes. We have also noted that on

any day neither the District Judge nor any other Judicial

Officers directed the District Magistrate or the police officers

present in the premises to remove all those persons. On the

other hand, till the agitation was called off on 15.01.2007, the

agitation was entirely peaceful and there was no law and order

problem, sufficient police force was stationed and that the

2

Members of the Committee and their sympathisers kept

requesting the District Judge/Magistrates and the officials and

staff with folded hands not to enter the courts in view of their

demand for establishment of the High Court Circuit Bench

and the District Judge/Judicial Officers and the staff

voluntarily returned home and did not ask the police to help

them get into the court premises. We have already pointed out

the assertion made in the form of an affidavit by the DGP - Mr.

Vohra that when the then Chief Justice (Hon'ble Mr. Justice

V.S. Sirpurkar) talked to him over phone, he did not order or

direct him to remove the agitators by force but only directed

him "to monitor the situation". There is no contra assertion or

statement from the side of the High Court through Registrar

General, who was supposed to be present when the then

Hon'ble Chief Justice discussed with the DGP over phone.

21) We are conscious of the fact that it is the responsibility of

the State Administration to see that courts function on all

working days without any hindrance. The administration of

justice should never be stalled at the instance of anyone

including the members of the bar even for any cause.

2 However, we have already noted that though the said

Committee started Satyagrah in front of the District Court as

early as on 15.12.2006 till 05.01.2007, no request from the

District Judge or from the Registrar General for removal of

rostrum put up in front of the gate and clearing the

agitators/satyagrahis who comprises not only members of the

bar, legislature, NGOs, persons from media and

representatives from different walks of life was made. We have

already observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the

assertion of the DGP Mr. Vohra about the conversation made

by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and it is the definite case of

the DGP that he was asked "to monitor the situation" and

"keep a watch over the development". He asserted that there

was no direction either from the then Chief Justice or from the

Registrar General for taking appropriate action against the

agitators.

22) We are also satisfied that in none of the fax messages

sent by the District Judge to the Registrar General, there was

even a whisper that the Judges at the District Court had

asked for any police help and there was no grievance that

2

police help was not made available to the Judges. In the facts

and materials placed and demonstrated, we are of the view

that the conclusion of the High Court that the appellants,

more particularly, government officials were responsible for

"aiding and abetting the agitators by non-action" cannot be

accepted.

23) We are also satisfied from the materials placed that the

police force was present at the gate of the District Court on all

days except Sundays and holidays to supervise law and order

situation and to assist the Judges and Judicial Officers, the

fact remains that the District Judge and the Judicial Officers

never asked for any police help for their entry into the court

premises on all days starting from 15.12.2006 ending with

15.01.2007 and all of them acceded to the humble request

made by the agitators and returned home. It is true that on

10.01.2007, the District Judge and the Judicial Officers

requested the District Magistrate to take sincere efforts to

resolve the crisis so that they may enter into the court

premises and discharge judicial functions.

2 24) Another aspect with which we are unable to accept the

conclusion of the Division Bench relates to the fact that fax

messages were sent from the office of the District Magistrate.

On this assumption, the Division Bench concluded that the

District Magistrate himself had knowledge about the contents

of the fax messages. It was explained that fax messages were

sent from one of the nine fax machines installed at different

rooms at the premises of the Office of the District Magistrate

and, as rightly pointed out, this does not necessarily mean

that the District Magistrate had knowledge about the matter of

the contents. Merely because the fax machines available at

the office of the District Magistrate were utilised, it cannot be

presumed that the District Magistrate could have noted the

contents. The said assumption cannot be accepted without

any further material.

25) It is true that several litigants might have suffered due to

the non-functioning of the courts, however, it is brought to our

notice that the concerned Magistrates were holding court at

their residences and chambers to deal with all urgent matters

3

and 192 cases were dealt with by different Magistrates during

the period 15.12.2006 to 15.01.2007.

26) We are also satisfied that there was no wrongful restraint

on the Judges and Judicial Officers of the District Court as is

evident from the GD entries wherein it was recorded that the

Judges and Judicial Officers had acceded to the request of the

agitators and restrained themselves from entering the court

premises though police force was present at the spot to

facilitate their entry as and when directed.

27) Though the Division Bench recorded a finding in the

impugned judgment that because of the obstruction, the

administration of justice in the District Court, Jalpaiguri was

obstructed for a month in spite of specific request of District

Judge, it was brought to our notice (which we have already

noted in the earlier paras) that the District Judge for the first

time on 10.01.2007 had communicated to the District

Magistrate with a request to make endeavour to resolve the

crisis and even in that communication there was no mention

of using police force to remove the agitators by force. It is also

evident that Judges of the District Court wanted a peaceful

3

solution and without use of force although in the fax messages

sent by the District Magistrate to the Registrar General, it was

complained that the Judges in the District Court were not

allowed to enter into the court premises.

28) We are also satisfied that there is no acceptable material

in holding that the officials committed criminal contempt of

the Judges in the District of Jalpaiguri by deliberately taking

no action against the agitators resulting in interference with

the due administration of justice. If we analyse the entire

materials including their statements, affidavits, GD entries,

fax messages, correspondence between District Judge and

Registrar General and District Magistrate, it cannot be

concluded that the officials deliberately abstained from taking

any action against the agitators.

29) As mentioned above, in the absence of any order either

on the judicial side by the then Chief Justice or any

communication and direction through the Registrar General

and in view of the assertion of DGP in the form of an affidavit

about the conversation made by the then Chief Justice and

himself, the contrary conclusion arrived at by the Division

3

Bench holding that the DGP has disobeyed the order of the

then Chief Justice to take immediate step for restoration of

functioning of the judiciary in the District cannot be accepted.

30) In a matter of this nature, when the agitation started on

15.12.2006 by way of a Committee comprising persons from

different walks of life including members of the bar, media,

business community, NGOs, elected representatives etc, it is

but proper for the High Court to intervene at the earliest point

of time by sending Administrative/Port-folio Judge or the

Registrar General to the spot. Such recourse was admittedly

not resorted to. Till 05.01.2007, no communication or any

effort was made by the Registrar General to the District

administration, particularly, officers concerned and to the

District Magistrate. Even the District Judge did not make any

request or issued directions for removal of the agitators who

were conducting Satyagrah in a peaceful manner. We have

already pointed out that every day on their request, all the

Judicial Officers returned home to avoid any confrontation

with the members of the bar and the Committee comprising

persons from different walks of life.

3 31) In the earlier part of our order, we have highlighted that

the allegations against all the appellants relate to criminal

contempt. Though the High Court has heard certain officials,

it is the grievance of the appellants that proper procedure was

not followed in all their cases. In other words, "fair procedure"

provided for "criminal contempt" had not been adhered to by

the High Court. It is also their grievance that even no formal

charge was framed. Inasmuch as the matter pertains to

criminal contempt, the issue is to be proved beyond

reasonable doubt. Admittedly, the District Judge did not file

any affidavit highlighting his stand and steps taken, if any,

even after knowing the claim of the appellants, particularly,

with reference to the various GD entries and their specific

stand. We are also satisfied that that charge against the

criminal contempt has not been made out in the manner

known to law.

32) It is also brought to our notice that all the appellants

filed separate affidavits explaining their stand and tendered

unconditional apology at the earliest point of time.

Considering the nature of the demand which, according to

3

them, the High Court itself has passed a resolution acceding

for the formation of the High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

and other relevant materials, the Division Bench ought to have

accepted the affidavits tendering apology. In fact, the

explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act enables

the court to accept the apology if the same is bona fide and

discharge the accused accordingly. Unfortunately, even such

recourse was not followed by the High Court. In appropriate

case, the acceptability of unconditional apology and regret has

been explained by this Court in O.P. Sharma & Ors. vs. High

Court of Punjab & Haryana, 2011 (5) Scale 518 = (2011) 6

SCC 86. Considering the fact that the members of the bar

who misbehaved with the court by raising slogans and

realizing their mistake, dignity of the court and conduct of the

legal profession tendered unconditional apology first before the

Judge before whom the unfortunate incident had occurred,

before the High Court where suo motu contempt was initiated

and before this Court by filing affidavits. Expressing

unconditional apology and regret with an undertaking that

they would maintain good behaviour in future and if the same

3

is at the earliest point of time and bona fide, the Courts have

to accept the same. In view of the language used in "proviso"

and "explanation" appended to Section 12(1) of the Act, this

Court accepted the affidavits filed by all the appellants in O.P.

Sharma (supra) and discharged all of them from the charges

leveled against them.

33) In Vishram Singh Raghubanshi vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh, (2011) 7 SCC 776, this Court reiterated the

principles laid down in O.P. Sharma (supra) with regard to

tendering unconditional apology and acceptance of the same.

34) Finally, it is worthwhile to refer to a Full Bench decision

of the Bombay High Court in Mohandas Karamchand

Gandhi and Anr., AIR 1920 Bombay 175. It was an appeal

filed against Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Mahadev

Haribhai Desai, who were the Editor and Publisher

respectively of a newspaper called `Young India'. They were

charged with contempt of Court for publishing in that

newspaper, on 6th August, 1919, a letter dated 22nd April, 1919

written by the District Judge of Ahmedabad to the Registrar of

the High Court and also with publishing comments on that

3

letter. The gist of the charge was that the letter in question

was a private official letter forming part of certain proceedings

then pending in this Court and that the comments which both

of them made in their newspaper were comments on that

pending case. Ultimately, this Court, after stating that the

same ought not to have been published, reprimanded them.

Though we are not concerned about the factual details and the

ultimate decision, the following observation relating to power

of the Court in contempt proceedings and how the same to be

applied had been reiterated at page 180 which reads as under:

".........We have large powers and, in appropriate cases, can

commit offenders to prison for such period as we think fit

and can impose fines of such amount as we may judge right.

But just as our powers are large, so ought we, I think, to use

them with discretion and with moderation remembering that

the only object we have in view is to enforce the due

administration of justice for the public benefit."

35) It is not in dispute that all the appellants have filed

separate affidavits tendering unconditional apology at the

earliest point of time before the High Court. We are satisfied

that no case has been made out for criminal contempt against

the appellants and there is nothing wrong in accepting their

unconditional apology and request which was made at the

earliest point of time.

3 36) Keeping the above principles and factual details as

mentioned in earlier paras in mind, we pass the following

order:

In view of the above discussion and abundant materials,

we are satisfied that in this suo motu proceeding, the High

Court has not made out a case to punish all the appellants

under "criminal contempt" in terms of Section 2 (c) read with

Section 12 of the Act. We were informed that the appellant-

Mukulesh Sanyal in Criminal Appeal No. 395 0f 2007 and

appellant-Smt. Pratima Bagchi in Criminal Appeal No. 399 of

2007 have been reported dead. Thus these two appeals filed

by them stand abated. The conviction and sentence on the

other appellants are set aside and all of them are discharged

from the charges leveled against them. All the appeals are

allowed.

..........................................J.

(P. SATHASIVAM)

..........................................J.

NEW DELHI; (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

SEPTEMBER 16, 2011.

3