Quashed

High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Vivek C. Shetty and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2009SMCP/2/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal contempt proceedings initiated against respondents following a sting operation alleging judicial impropriety. Police investigation failed to trace the sender; the Court held the notices were issued without sufficient scrutiny and discharged the respondents.

What did the court decide?

The contempt proceedings were dropped and the respondents were discharged.

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs Vivek C. Shetty and… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2007

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3058 OF 2007

¶7

AND

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 1223 OF 2007

¶9

High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

¶10

.. Petitioner.

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Vivek Shetty & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶13

Mr. Shashikumar Pandey for contemnor no. 1.

¶14

Mr. Jethanand Dhudhani and Ms. Draupadi Dhudhani, contemnor nos. 2 & 3

¶15

present in person.

¶16

Ms. A.S. Pai, APP., for the State.

¶17

CORAM : J. N. PATEL &

¶18

SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ

¶19

DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009

¶20

P.C. :

¶21

The respondent no. 1 is absent. The learned counsel

¶22

for respondent no. 1 states that he is out of station and is not likely

¶23

¶24

to reach Bombay. He makes an oral application for exemption of his presence today. On the oral application of the learned counsel for respondent no. 1, presence of respondent no. 1 is exempted.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing in the matter. The Bench presided over by Justice B.H. Marlapalle invoked powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Rule 4(2) of the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994 and directed that criminal contempt proceedings be initiated and registered against respondent nos. 1 to 3. The proceedings were initiated in connection with the undated and unsigned letter sent in the name of "FIGHTER NEWS AGENCY" which was addressed to the Chief Justice

¶26

of India and the Chief Justice, Bombay High Court with title as "STING OPERATION ON JUSTICE B.H. MARLAPALLE, JUDGE OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT - WITH ONE LITIGANT KNOWN AS MR. VIVEK SHETTY." Mr. Vivek Shetty is respondent no. 1 in the present proceedings. The letter made allegations that Advocate Mr. Peter Lobo who claimed to be from the chambers of Mr. Ramrao Adik and also a colleague of Mr. Adhik Shirodkar had contacted Justice B.H. Marlapalle in connection with writ petition no. 8627 of 2007, a matter of leave and licence of a flat valued at Rs. 80 lacs and the kick-backs promised to justice B.H. Marlapalle to the extent of Rs. 5

¶27

lacs. The letter also mentions that an advance money of Rs. 2.5 lacs having been paid to Mr. Peter Lobo which was collected on

¶28

¶29

behalf of Justice B.H. Marlapalle at Hotel Sea Princess in the presence of one Mr. Abdul Sattar Hakkim who hails from the village of Justice Marlapalle.

¶30

The respondents to the contempt proceedings have filed their affidavit in reply and denied having any connection whatsoever to the communication on the basis of which the notice of contempt was issued on 20.4.2007.

¶31

By the orders passed in the present contempt petition

¶32

by this Court the police enquiry was directed to be conducted. During the course of police enquiry, envelopes addressed to various High Court Judges containing the communication were collected by the police for the purpose of ascertaining the handwriting on the envelopes. The same along with the specimen handwriting of one Mr. Milind Mahadev Borkar, employee of Adv. Charanjeet Chanderpal appearing for respondent no.1 Mr. Ramesh Thakurdas Phatnani, brother of respondent no. 3, Mrs. Meeta Kishan Krishnani, neighbour of respondent no. 3, Mrs. Namrata T. Kushlani, neighbour of respondent no. 3 and Mr. Manoj Jethanand Dudhani, son of respondent no. 3, in addition to that of respondent nos. 1 and 4 were obtained. The same were forwarded to the handwriting experts. During the course of investigation the police had conducted raids on the residential as well as office premises of Adv. Charanjeet

¶33

¶34

Chanderpal and the respondents for the purpose of checking up the data in the hard disc of the computers and laptops owned by these persons. After completion of investigation, the Jt. Commissioner of Police (Crime), Mumbai has filed his report dated 23.1.2008. According to the report, the enquiry revealed the following:-

¶35

"1) No letters of Advocate Charanjeet Chanderpal were sent by the official courier during the said period.

¶36

1. Andheri Railway Post Office clerk does not know the person who booked the envelopes for despatch.

¶37

1. Advocate Charanjeet Chanderpal denied the allegation and stated that during the period under reference he was attending other matters in Supreme Court. There are mistakes in spelling and font also.

¶38

1. The suspects as per Mr. Vivet Shetty's letter have categorically denied the allegations.

¶39

1. Hand Writing Expert states that the individualised similarities indicating common authorship of writing but

¶40

no author could be traced. Caveat examination signatures and writing is inconsistent to verify.

¶41

¶42

No specimen hand writing of any individual is identical to the hand writing in question."

¶43

The report of the enquiry is concluded with the remark that on the statements recorded, the enquiries made with the individuals and the Hand Writing Expert's report, they could not trace or lead any specific information or clue about the author and sender of the said concerned envelopes. Thus, it is clear and obvious from the extensive investigation carried out by the police that none of the respondents and their advocates were concerned in any way with the communication sent on the basis of which the show cause notices for criminal contempt came to be issued on 20.4.2007.

¶44

It is true that the stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of Court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of Court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with not only to punish them for the

¶45

¶46

wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. At the same time it is also true that the action for criminal contempt being very serious in nature which visits the contemnor with penal consequences, it is necessary that Courts should be slow and circumspect in issuing contempt notices., particularly, in the present case where the communication which had been received, gives no clue whatsoever as regards the identity of the sender. As already mentioned above, the letter is undated, unsigned and supposed to have been sent by FIGHER NEWS AGENCY. In such facts of the case, it would have been more correct and appropriate that the learned Judge had satisfied himself

¶47

as regards the genuinenes of the communication before initiating any action in the matter under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Rule 4 (2) of the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994 against the respondents. From the records placed before us, we are satisfied that neither any of the respondents nor any of their advocates including Advocate Charanjeet Chanderpal are even remotely concerned or connected with the communication received from "FIGHTER NEWS AGENCY". It is obvious that this

¶48

is a case where somebody has played a mischief with the sole purpose of harassing the respondents and their advocates. We, therefore, drop the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondent-contemnors. The respondents stand discharged.

¶49

¶50

In view of the dismissal of the contempt proceedings,

¶51

all the criminal and miscellaneous applications made therein stand

¶52

disposed of.

¶53

( J. N. PATEL, J)

¶54

(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.)

High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Vivek C. Shetty and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Vivek C. Shetty and Ors.

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

Malti Madhav Desai Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

M/S Star Apparels Private Ltd. Vs Parampreet Singh Bindra Alias King Bindra and 6 Ors.

Shri Rajan Gangaram Vanmali Vs Central Bank of India and Anr.

Manjulaben I. Shrimankar and Anr. Mumbai Vs Smt. Rekha Kumar Shrimankar , Mumbai

M/S. Haldyn Glass Limited, Mumbai. Vs 1. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. Mumbai and Another.

M/S. Allied Digitial Services Ltd., Mumbai Vs Pramod Agarwal Mumbai