Awdhesh Kumar vs Sri Akhilesh Jain, Assistant ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6448 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 48
 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 10 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Awdhesh Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- Sri Akhilesh Jain, Assistant Commissioner / Drugs Licensing Authority And 9 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Mani Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

2. The present criminal contempt is preferred with the prayer to punish the opposite parties under Section 15/16 of the Contempt of Court Act for having used bitter language against the High Court, applicant and his advocate and has disobeyed and not complied with the orders dated 27.9.2021, 15.12.2021 and 17.12.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.20791 of 2021, 31948 of 2021 and 29597 of 2021.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a proprietor of medical firm M/s Bhagwati Medical Hall, Shop No.80, Parmar Market, Loriz, Hotel Compound, Agra, and is governed by the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The applicant is engaged in the business of sale of medical drugs since more than 35 years. The license of the applicant is valid upto 22.2.2025.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant under the license issued by the authorities is entitled to run the business of sale of medicinal drugs. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have caused restriction in running of business by means of an inspection report dated 3.9.2019 under Section 22(1)(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The applicant challenged the said inspection report dated 3.9.2019 by means of Writ-C No.38859 of 2019. This Court by means of judgment dated 3.9.2019, quashed the inspection report dated 3.9.2019, and directed that the inspection report dated 3.9.2019 be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner was permitted to furnish his explanation to the concerned authorities within two weeks.

5. On 20.7.2021, a circular letter was issued by the District Magistrate, Agra, referring therein to letters dated 17.7.2020 and 1.8.2021, issued by the Aushadhi Anugyapan Evam Niyantran Prdhikari, U.P. Lucknow, constituting a team for restricting the abuse of Alcoholic Medicine (Tincher). The opposite party nos.2 to 10 pursuant to the aforesaid circular dated 20.7.2021, completely prohibited the running of the petitioner's firm.

6. It is submitted that the opposite parties have no authority under law to cause any restriction in the running of the shop of the applicant and neither the license of the applicant has been cancelled nor suspended.

7. It is alleged that on 1.8.2021, opposite party no.5 to 10 along with 9-10 constables/persons came to the petitioner's firm and pushed out the shopkeeper/attendant and locked the door of the petitioner's firm. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid action preferred Writ-C No.20791 of 2021 before this Court. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of by order dated 27.9.2021 on the statement made by the counsel for the State that no action has been taken against the petitioner's firm and the petitioner's premises has not been raided, nor, locked and under the circumstances, it was directed that the respondent shall not interfere in the running of business by the petitioner/applicant except in accordance with law.

8. In pursuance of the aforesaid circular dated 20.7.2021, opposite party nos.2 to 10 along with constables made sudden inspection at the applicant's firm/shop and it is alleged to have found 1745 bottles of Aromatic Cardamom and 522 empty bottles. Further, it is alleged that the alcoholic velocity of recovered substances found to be 87%. Further, on demand, no license has been produced by the applicant, consequently he was arrested at 1845 hours in pursuance to the First Information Report dated 28.7.2021. Petitioner has challenged the First Information Report by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.11190 of 2021, which is pending before this Court. The petitioner and other proprietors of the firm have made complaint with regard to bribery under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

9. It is submitted that the orders dated 27.9.2021, 15.12.2021 and 17.12.2021, passed by this Court was served on the opposite parties. It is submitted that despite the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 27.9.2021, 15.12.2021 and 17.12.2021, opposite parties deliberately and knowingly to harm the petitioner are coming to the applicant's establishment and threatening and restricting the running of the applicant's shop. It is submitted that the opposite party nos.5 to 10 along with their associates under instigation of opposite party nos.2 and 3 are coming to the shop of the applicant and uttering unparliamentary language and restricting the running of the shop. It is also alleged that the opposite parties have used foul language against the Hon'ble Court and Advocates. It is on this assertion, applicant has preferred the present contempt application.

10. Initially when the contempt application was filed, permission of the learned Advocate General was not sought. Thereafter the learned Advocate General has declined to grant permission under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, while rejecting the aforesaid application, the learned Advocate General has observed following:-

"After carefully considering the facts of the case and the material placed before me including the pen-drive upon which heavy reliance was placed, and after examining relevant provisions of law, I do not find any case of criminal contempt made out from the allegations made in the application.

In spite of a question being asked to the counsel of the applicant as to how a case of Criminal Contempt requiring sanction under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act is made out, the applicant counsel has relied upon a video clipping provided along with the pen-drive, which is already a subject matter of investigation in accordance with law under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, even this submission is not sufficient to make out any case of criminal contempt as alleged by the applicant.

The applicant has only made bald statements and has not substantiated his claims by bringing any material on record to demonstrate that the alleged contemnors have used foul language against the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court or have lowered the authority of the High Court and have interfered in the administration of justice. The pen-drive relied upon by the counsel does not substantiate the argument advanced on its basis."

11. The applicant initially had not brought on record in the present contempt application any evidence supporting the allegations against the opposite parties. Subsequently, a supplementary affidavit dated 23.06.2022, was filed bringing on record photographs of the shop of the applicant where opposite parties are said to have visited. The applicant has not brought on record any material to substantiate the allegation but the photographs have been filed subsequent to the rejection order passed by the learned Advocate General. There is no affidavit of the persons before whom the alleged words were uttered and the details of the language/words uttered by opposite parties have not been brought on record.

12. The contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the standard of proof is required in the same manner as in other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is entitled to the protection of all safeguards/rights which are provided in the criminal jurisprudence, including the benefit of doubt. There must be a clear-cut case of obstruction of administration of justice by a party intentionally to bring the matter within the ambit of the said provision. The case should not rest only on surmises and conjectures. In Debabrata Bandhopadhyay and others v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1969 SC 189, the Apex Court observed as under:

"9. A question whether there is contempt of court or not is a serious one. The court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. It behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemner must be punished....... Punishment under the law of Contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority.To take action in an unclear case is to make the law of contempt do duty for other measures and is not to be encouraged."

13. Section 2(c) of Contempt of Court Act defines "criminal contempt" as follows:

"''criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which--

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;"

14. The standard of proof required to establish a charge of "Criminal Contempt" is the same as in any other criminal proceeding.

15. The present criminal contempt application is preferred for flouting the orders of this Court and further the opposite party using abusive language which tends to lower the authority of this Court. The contempt petition is filed by Awdhesh Kumar and the affidavit in support of the contempt petition is filed by one Amit Dixit being son and pairokar of the contempt petitioner. In paragraph no. 1 of the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition it is stated that the deponent is son of the applicant and doing pairvi on behalf of the applicant and as such is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition does not disclose as to the person/witness before the language of complaint was uttered by the opposite party. Further, the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the contempt petitioner is also sworn by Amit Dixit, who has not stated that he was the witness of the alleged incident. The standard of proof in respect of criminal contempt is the same as that of any other criminal proceedings and it was imperative on the part of the contempt petitioner to have file the affidavit of the person before whom the foul language is alleged to have been used by the opposite party. The affidavit of pairokar cannot be the proof in respect of the allegations. The photographs filed by the contempt petitioner along with the supplementary affidavit cannot substantiate the fact that the opposite party has used foul language. Learned Advocate General has also recorded that the contempt petitioner has failed to substantiate that the contemnors have used any foul language against the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court or have lowered the authority of the High Court and have interfered with the administration of justice. Learned Advocate General has further recorded finding that the pen drive relied upon by the counsel does not substantiate the argument advanced on its basis. The affidavit of witnesses (in support of the allegations) have not been filed in the present case. The pleadings are general nature and lack specifications as to the person before the alleged criminal contempt was made by the opposite parties. The allegations of criminal contempt are not substantiated in accordance with law.

16. In the opinion of the Court, the supplementary affidavit filed after rejection of the application for consent, by the learned Advocate General on 27.5.2022, is an after thought to improve the case of the applicant, to prosecute the Officers of the State machinery. It is also admitted by learned counsel for the applicant that Civil Contempt is already pending consideration before this Court.

17. Under the circumstances, the present contempt application sans merit and deserves to be rejected.

18. The present contempt application is, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 11.7.2022

D. Tamang