Partly allowed

Surendra Vikram Singh v. Smt. Suman Bala Srivastava and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2022/5/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt appeal, the Allahabad High Court set aside the three-month imprisonment and modified the fine from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 2,000 imposed for willful disobedience of a writ court order, accepting the appellant's bona fide apology and upholding statutory sentencing limits.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of three months set aside; fine reduced from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 2,000.

Surendra Vikram Singh Vs Smt. Suman Bala Srivastava and… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

[1]

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPEAL No. - 5 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Surendra Vikram Singh Respondent :- Smt. Suman Bala Srivastava And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Girish Chandra Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

¶6

1. This Contempt Appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed by the appellant, Surendra Vikram Singh , challenging the judgment and order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Application (Civil) No.2530 of 2019: Smt. Suman Bala Srivastava vs. Rajesh Kumar Verma and another, whereby the learned Single Judge convicted the appellant herein/contemnorSurendra Vikram Singh for committing contempt under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.20,000/-.

¶7

2. The facts of the case have been fully detailed by the learned Single Judge and it is not necessary for this Court to repeat the same all over again. It appears that the services of respondent no.1-Smt. Suman Bala Srivastava were terminated on 01.11.2018, which was challenged by her in Writ Petition No. 1776 (SS) of 2019. The learned Writ Court, vide order dated 25.01.2019, while staying the operation of the aforesaid termination order dated 01.11.2018, permitted the respondent no.1-Smt. Suman Bala Srivastava to discharge her duties and her salary and other dues were also to be paid to the respondent no.1-Smt. Suman Bala Srivastava.

¶8

3. The aforesaid order dated 25.01.2019 was served upon the appellant, but it was not complied with and as such, respondent

¶9

[2]

¶10

no.1-Smt. Suman Bala Srivastava has preferred Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2530 of 2019 : Smt. Suman Bala Srivastava Vs. Rajesh Kumar Verma and another, wherein the learned Single Judge, by means of the impugned order dated 21.11.2022, came to the conclusion that the appellant had committed a willful disobedience of the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the learned Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 1776 (SS) of 2019 and were, therefore, guilty of civil contempt as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and convicted the appellant for committing contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.20,000/-.

¶11

¶12

Hence the instant appeal.

¶13

5. This Court had earlier passed a detailed order on 05.12.2022, which is reproduced herein below:-

¶14

“1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Girish Chandra Verma, Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1/Smt. Suman Bala Srivastava and perused the material on record.

¶15

2. Since respondent No.2 is a proforma party, notice need not be issued to him.

¶16

3. The instant Contempt Appeal is directed against the order dated 21.11.2022 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2530 of 2019, whereby the Contempt Court convicted the respondent No.2/contemnor-Surendra Vikram Singh for committing contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.20,000/- alongwith a default clause.

¶17

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge without taking into consideration the observations made by this Court in Special Appeal No.200 of 2022 dated 11.10.2022 which was filed against the order dated 25.01.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 1776 (SS) of 2019 as also the order dated 01.11.2022 passed in Special Appeal No. 457 of 2022 and the order of the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.35171 of 2022 dated 03.11.2022 and also on the ground that the provisions contained in Section 12 (2) of the Contempt of

¶18

[3]

¶19

Courts Act, 1971 [here-in-after referred to as ''the Act'] bars from imposing any sentence in excess what is prescribed under Section 12 (1) of the Act. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has imposed a penal fine of Rs.20,000/- against the maximum cap of Rs.2,000/- as provided under Section 12 (1) of the Act. He further submitted that the Contempt Court did not consider the provisions contained in Section 12 (3) of the Act which mandates that only when the Contempt Court considers that fine will not meet the ends of justice and sentence of imprisonment is necessary instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, be directed to be detained in civil prison for a period not exceeding six months. Further, he submits that in para 2 of the affidavit filed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2530 of 2019, the appellant has stated that if there has been any inadvertent action of the appellant, which may be found wanting, the appellant tenders his unqualified, unconditional and sincere apology for the same and begs for pardon from this Hon'ble Court and the Contempt Court did not consider this aspect also . He further submits that the impugned judgment and order does not show such consideration by the Contempt Court before passing sentence of 3 months, hence the impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Contempt Court is liable to be set aside.

¶20

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No.1 has fairly conceded that as per the provisions contained in Section 12 (2) of the Act, the fine which can be imposed cannot go beyond Rs.2,000/- and in the instant case, the Contempt Court has imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- on the contemnor. He further submitted that the contemnor has willfully disobeyed the interim order passed by this Court on 25.01.2019 whereby respondent No.1 was allowed to be discharged the duties and further directed the contemnor that she shall be paid her salary and other dues while keeping the operation and implementation of the Office Order dated 01.11.2018 issued by the appellant, who is the Manager of the Institution, in abeyance.

¶21

6. Rebutting the arguments of learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that on 31.01.2019 Smt. Jyoti Singh, a regularly selected candidate, was appointed by the Board as is evident from the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 31.01.2019, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure - 12 to the Appeal, to which learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that Smt. Jyoti Singh did not join and the selected candidatesMs. Kanchan Lata and Shri Vijay were only appointed on 12.11.2021 and 15.11.2021 respectively and the

¶22

[4]

¶23

respondent No.1 was not allowed to resume duties upto November, 2021 in respect of the order passed by this Court on 25.01.2019, hence the Contempt Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant/contemnor. 7. In order to adjudicate the matter, it is necessary to look into the provisions of Section 12 which reads as under:-

¶24

12. Punishment for contempt of court. - (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:

¶25

Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶26

Explanation - An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.

¶27

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it.

¶28

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit.

¶29

(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is a company, every person who, at the time the contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of each such person:

¶30

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.

¶31

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the

¶32

[5]

¶33

part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.

¶34

Explanation.--For the purpose of sub-sections (4) and (5),--

¶35

(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and

¶36

(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm."

¶37

8. Considering the submissions advanced by the leaned Counsel for the parties, it transpires that as per the the provisions contained in Section 12 (1) of the Act, the Contempt Court may punish the contemnor with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or a fine which may extend to Rs.2,000/- or with both and as per Section 12 (2) of the Act, no Court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in subsection (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it. In the instant case, the Contempt Court has imposed a fine of Rs.20,000/-. The matter requires consideration by this Court.

¶38

9. The present appeal stands ''admitted' on the short question of imposition of fine and sentence of imprisonment.

¶39

10. The learned Counsel for the parties are directed to exchange their pleadings, if any, by the next date.

¶40

11. List the appeal for final disposal on 15.12.2022.

¶41

12. Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 21.11.2022 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2530 of 2019 shall remain stayed.

¶42

13. The name of Sri Girish Chandra Verma, Advocate shall be printed in the cause list as counsel for respondent No.1 when the matter is next listed. ”

¶43

¶44

When this matter was listed yesterday, this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, passed the following order:-

¶45

“Mr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Girish Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 are present.

¶46

Appellant/Contemnor shall be present in person tomorrow i.e. 16.12.2022 before this Court in order to hear him on sentence.

¶47

[6]

¶48

Interim order, if any, granted earlier shall continue till the next date of listing. ”

¶49

7. Today, when the matter is taken up, appellant/contemnor is present in Court and is identified by his Counsel, Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi.

¶50

8. Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Girish Chandra Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and perused the material brought on record.

¶51

9. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant/ contemnor has tendered his unconditional apology and the same has also stated in paragraph no.2 to the affidavit filed in support of interim relief application. His submission is that as the act and conduct of the appellant was not deliberate one in not complying with the Writ Court’s order, hence the period of detention as ordered by the learned Single Judge by means of the impugned order be set aside . The aforesaid paragraph-2 of the affidavit is quoted herein under:-

¶52

“That, before making any submission to the averments made in the contempt petition, the Appellant tenders unconditional and unqualified apology for the act of omission, if any, of the Appellant, which this Hon'ble court construe, as amounting to its contempt. The Appellant begs leave to submit that he has greatest respect and regard for this Hon'ble court and he has never attempted nor shall ever attempt, in thought, word or deed to conduct himself in a manner which be construed as even slightly undermining the dignity and majesty of this Hon'ble Court;”

¶53

10. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the provisions contained in Section 12(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which bars from imposing any fine not exceeding to Rs.2000/- as is prescribed under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. But in the instant case the appellant has been imposed with a fine of Rs.20,000/- against Rs.2,000/- as

¶54

[7]

¶55

provided under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶56

11. For convenience, the Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is reproduced herein below :-

¶57

“12. Punishment for Contempt of court.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both :

¶58

Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶59

Explanation.— An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.

[8]

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the detention in civil prison of such director, manager, secretary or other officer.

¶66

Explanation.—For the purpose of sub-sections (4) and (5),—

¶67

(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and

¶68

(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.”

¶69

12. From perusal of Section 12 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, it transpires that the contemnor may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

¶70

13. In the instant case, the appellant has willfully disobeyed the interim order passed by the learned Writ Court dated 25.01.2019 as is evident from the impugned order itself, therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge by means of the impugned order with regard to facts that the appellant has disobeyed the order passed by the learned Writ Court dated 25.01.2019.

¶71

[9]

¶72

14. It is pertinent to mention that this Court, vide order dated 05.12.2022, admitted the instant criminal appeal only on the short question of imposition of fine and sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, this Court has proceeded to decide the instant appeal only on two points i.e. (1) imposition of fine and (2) sentence of imprisonment as ordered in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶73

15. So far as first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in respect of unconditional apology tendered by him, it is apparent that in the affidavit filed in support of application for interim relief, the appellant has tendered his unconditional apology. The appellant is present before this Court and has stated before this Court that he regret for the inadvertent and unconditional mistake happened on his part. He further undertakes that he will be careful in future.

¶74

16. On due consideration, this Court is of the view that there is nothing to suspect the bona fide of the appellant. No antecedents also is noticed against the appellant. In fact, the contempt jurisdiction is intended not for punishing the contemnor but for protecting the dignity and authority of the Court. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is only appropriate in the interest of justice that the apology tendered by the appellant be accepted and sentence of three months as ordered by the learned Single Judge by means of the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

¶75

17. So far as contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to imposition of fine of Rs.20,000/-, it transpires from perusal of Section 12 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 that fine may be imposed but that too may be extended to Rs.2000/-. It also transpires from Section 12 (2) of the Act, 1971 that no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a Court subordinate to it. Thus, from the perusal of

¶76

[10]

¶77

Sections 12 (1) and 12 (2) of the Act, 1971 as well as from perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has erred in imposing the fine of Rs.20,000/- upon the appellant instead of Rs.2000/-.

¶78

18. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the this case, the instant Contempt Appeal is partly allowed . The sentence of three months awarded by the learned Single Judge to the appellant by means of the impugned order is hereby setaside. The fine imposed upon the appellant of Rs.20,000/- by means of impugned order shall be modified to Rs.2,000/- in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶79

19. It is made clear that fine of Rs.2,000/- shall be paid by the appellant before the Registry of this Court within a week from today, failing which, the Senior Registrar of this Court shall initiate proceedings in accordance with law for recovery of the same as arrears of land revenue from the appellant forthwith.

¶80

(Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶81

Order Date :- 16.12.2022 Arnima

¶82

Digitally signed by ARNIMA SINGH Date: 2022.12.16 17:26:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surendra Vikram Singh v. Smt. Suman Bala Srivastava and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Vikram Singh v. Smt. Suman Bala Srivastava and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd.Shariq Thru.Father Mohd.Saban Khan Vs State of U.P.Thru.Police Commissioner Lucknow and Ors.

Vineeta and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secretary Home Lko. and Ors.

Vijendra Singh and Ors. Vs State Thru. C.B.I.

Bijay Kumar Mishra and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Ors.

Rajneesh and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Ors.

Smt. Sadhana and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Ors.