(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) Rule.
Mr.Pipalia, learned Counsel for the respondent, waives service of notice of Rule.
The respondent, Govindbhai Ramabhai Vaish, had forwarded the application to the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice of this Court by making allegation against the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Upleta, who was in-charge of the Sessions Case No.55 of 2011. The learned District Judge, based on the said application, since was forwarded to him, transferred the matter to the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Jetpur and further the respondent was also called upon to produce the material in support of his application made to the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice. The respondent, at that stage, backed out and did not produce any evidence. Such conduct on the part of the respondent is the basis for initiation of the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
We may record that it was observed by the Committee of this Court that the complainant has interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings by making false allegations against the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned and has been benefited by way of transfer of the proceedings and as such, is guilty Criminal Contempt of Court and, therefore, the Registry was directed to place the entire material before the Bench taking up criminal contempt for consideration.
It was on account of the aforesaid, the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act was initiated and notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent had appeared in person and thereafter with his Advocate and has filed affidavit dated 25.6.2012, wherein paragraphs 4 to 8 he has prayed as under:-
"(4) I state that I withdraw all my allegations against the Ld. Sessions Judge Shri Nayak and also tender my unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court and also withdraw my application dated 6.8.2011 to the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice of Gujarat.
(5) I state that I made the above application as I was flooded with emotions as my sister had to commit suicide because of the accused persons named in the FIR lodged by me and the Ld. Sessions Court, Upleta had granted them regular bail after charge-sheet. I state that the accused met me after being released on bail and did told me that they had made some arrangements with the Ld. Judge and now therefore they will not be punished.
6. I state that it was the above statement of the accused that made me make such representation to the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice of Gujarat and also the fact that I was not properly advised to challenge the order passed by the Ld. Sessions Court, Upleta before the Court of law and instead I made such disgraceful representation to the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice of Gujarat and I apologize for the same and assure the Hon'ble Court that such an act will not be repeated by me in future.
7. I further state and submit that after my such representation to this Hon'ble Court, the Sessions Case No.55/2011 got transferred to Sessions Court, Jetpur and therefore I again tender my apology but in reality the same was not the intention. I therefore state before this Hon'ble Court that the matter may again be transferred to the Sessions Court at Upleta and the trial Court may proceed on merits of the matter.
8. I therefore tender my unconditional apology with all respect to this Hon'ble Court as well as other Hon'ble Courts and pray before this Hon'ble Court that the Hon'ble Court may kindly pardon me from giving any punishment to me and accept my unconditional apology and further assure this Hon'ble Court that the same thing will not be repeated by me in future."
The aforesaid shows that the respondent has declared to withdraw the application made to the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice. He has also stated that the matter may again be transferred to the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Upleta, who was seized with the proceedings and the trial may proceed on merits before the said Court. He has also tendered an unconditional apology and has prayed to pardon him from giving punishment to him and accept his unconditional apology. He has also declared before the Court that the same thing will not be repeated by him in future.
Had it been a case where the allegation against a Judge was made and no benefit was taken by the litigant, it might stand on a different footing and different consideration may prevail and in a given case, Court may also take a lenient view by accepting the apology or otherwise. In our view, it is not a matter where no benefit is taken by the litigant - respondent herein, but is rather a case where the benefit has been taken by the litigant by making allegation against the judge concerned, inasmuch as, since the allegations were made by the respondent against the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Principal District Judge has transferred the matter to the other Sessions Court. Thereafter, when the respondent was called upon to produce the evidence in support of the allegations, he has shown inability or he has not produced any evidence whatsoever. It also appears to us from the contents of the above referred affidavit that the respondent was flooded with emotions as his sister committed suicide and, therefore, on the basis of hearsay he made some allegations. Since the respondent has also declared before the Court that the matter may be re-transferred to the original Court namely; the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Upleta, it can be said that the respondent has realized his mistake making baseless allegations and he is ready to abandon the alleged benefit of transfer of the matter by putting the clock back or rather agreeing for conducting the matter before the same Court.
In our view, if the matter is re-transferred to the same Court namely; the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Upleta, the faith in the system shall stand restored with the further observations that the allegation against the then Additional Sessions Judge would no more remain in existence and the action, if any, taken would also stand withdrawn.
In view of the aforesaid peculiar conduct of the respondent, we find that the respondent should not go unpunished and appropriate punishment deserves to be imposed. We are conscious of the fact that in a criminal contempt, if somebody has interfered with the smooth course of administration of justice, it may call for severe punishment, but the punishment has to meet with the principles of proportionality based on the gravity of the contempt. As the respondent has declared for withdrawal of the application made to the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice and has also agreed for re-transfer of the matter to the original Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Upleta and he has further tendered unconditional apology, we find that the appropriate punishment should be the imposition of fine of Rs.7,500/- to be paid by the respondent.
Mr.Pipalia, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has declared before us that the respondent is agreeable to pay the fine of Rs.7,500/- within two weeks from today and the Court may permit him to deposit the fine with the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Upleta.
Under the circumstances, we find it appropriate to issue the following directions:-
(a) The application made dated 6.8.2011 made by the respondent to the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice shall stand withdrawn. Consequently, no further action would be required to be undertaken.
(b) The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rajkot shall re-transfer Sessions Case No.55/2011 from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jetpur to the Court of additional Sessions Judge at Upleta.
(c) The respondent shall pay the fine of Rs.7,500/- within a period of two weeks from today and the amount of fine shall be deposited with the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Upleta. In the event the amount of fine is not deposited, the learned Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the respondent for recovery of the fine in accordance with law and shall also be at liberty to make reference to this Court for taking further action in accordance with law.
(d) Upon compliance of the earlier direction, the apology tendered by the respondent is accepted to the aforesaid extent only.
The petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly.
(Jayant Patel, J.) (C. L. Soni, J.) vinod Top