High Court Sentences Contemnor to One-Month Imprisonment for Criminal Contempt

The court’s contempt proceedings were initiated by a report presented by a Local Commissioner, who was appointed by the court and was carrying out a commission as per a judicial order. During the inspection, the person against whom contempt was held acted in an aggressive and non-cooperative manner and even put a gun on the table, which made it quite clear that he wanted to intimidate the inspectors. This whole episode was reported by the local commissioner and was also testified to by the police officer who was accompanying him. The Single Judge, after going through the report, observed that the conduct amounted to interference with the administration of justice and thus sent the matter to be dealt with in criminal contempt proceedings.

When the Division Bench took it up, the person accused of contempt said that the gun was a toy used to scare away the stray animals. The Court ordered that the sealed weapon must be brought to the court and opened in its presence. When the Bench examined, they found that the object was an air gun and not a toy. From this, the Court asserted that the explanation provided by the contemnor was not true but an attempt to mislead the court. The unconditional apology later presented was also considered to be devoid of sincerity and repentance. The Court stated that such behaviour was nothing less than a clear hindrance to the judicial process, and so it was punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Issue Raised: Whether the placement of the firearm on the table and making false statements by the contemnor during the Local Commission’s execution amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Court’s Decision: The High Court held that the contemnor’s act of displaying a gun and obstructing the Local Commissioner’s duties constituted deliberate interference with the administration of justice. It observed that the Local Commissioner acts as an officer of the court and that intimidation or obstruction in the performance of such duties directly undermines judicial authority. The Bench rejected the defence that the gun was a toy, finding it inconsistent with the physical evidence and the testimony of the police officer present at the spot.

Thus, the contemnor was held guilty of criminal contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Court sentenced the contemnor to simple imprisonment for one month and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000, with an additional fifteen days’ imprisonment in case of default. Directions were issued for the contemnor’s immediate custody, and the Jail Superintendent was instructed to ensure compliance. The Court also permitted voluntary surrender within the time specified in the order.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below