Satwant Singh vs Malkeet Singh

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3001/2008

SATWANT SINGH Appellant VERSUS

MALKEET SINGH Respondent

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. This is a case where the appellant was punished for

civil contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt

of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench

have taken the view that once the respondent had been

granted interim bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. as per order

dated 17.02.2006, his arrest on 26.05.2007 on a charge which

has been later on added under Section 307, IPC constitutes

contempt.

3. We find that this addition of charge is based on a

subsequent investigation on the direction issued by the

Senior Superintendent of Police after disposal of the Signature Not Verified Section 438 petition by the High Court and the arrest also Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2017.07.26 16:49:41 IST Reason: was carried out on his instruction. It is significant to

note that when the FIR was originally registered Section 307 2

had been included. It was deleted based on the instruction

of a superior officer. After such deletion only, the

respondent approached the High Court.

4. We find that the appellant had tendered an apology

explaining his conduct before this Court in the Civil

Appeal. We also find that the appellant had tendered

unconditional apology explaining that he only carried out

the instruction of the Superintendent and he bona fide

understood the order passed by the Court to mean that the

respondent is entitled to protection under Section 438,

Cr.P.C. only in respect of those offences reflected in the

order dated 17.02.2017. Section 307, IPC having been added

subsequently there was no impediment in proceeding with the

investigation after arresting the respondent on that count.

In our view, in the facts of the present case, it is a

plausible explanation to show that there was no wilful or

deliberate attempt to violate the Court order. No doubt, it

would have been certainly more appropriate to apprise the

Court on this development and seek modification. On the

facts of this case we are, however, convinced there was no

intentional move to overstep the order of the Court.

5. It is in that context, his apology becomes relevant.

The appellant has tendered an unconditional apology for bona

fide exercise of his powers as an Investigating Officer. 3

Apology is one of the defences in the case of a civil

contempt and the Court is bound to explain as to why the

apology should not be accepted.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of

the view that the apology tendered by the appellant has to

be accepted.

7. In this view of the matter, the Appeal is allowed. The

conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is set

aside, accepting his sincere, genuine and unconditional

apology in writing before this Court and the High Court.

8. The Appeal is allowed in the above terms.

…................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

.................J. [R. BANUMATHI] JULY 20, 2017;

NEW DELHI.