Gopala Krishna Dwivedi vs In Re
2022 Latest Caselaw 1982 AP

                                                                                          2

                    HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

                                MAIN CASE: C.A.No.9 of 2022


                                    PROCEEDINGS SHEET


Sl.     DATE                                     ORDER                                    OFFICE
No.                                                                                        NOTE


                                        (Through Physical Mode)
1.    22.04.2022
                                           I.A.No.1 of 2022
                       This is an application for dispensing with the filing of the
                   certified copy of the impugned order.
                      Mr. A. Sudharshan Reddy, learned Senior counsel representing
                   Ms. Kanna Venkata Mahar Rajani, learned counsel for the
                   appellant, has submitted that certified copy has been filed. But the
                   same is not available on record.
                      Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to file certified
                   copy in the registry during the course of the day.
                      Accordingly, this application is disposed of.
                                           C.A.No.9 of 2022
                       Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would
                   submit that under the order impugned the learned single Judge
                   while holding that the appellant and other contemnors are guilty of
                   committing contempt of court and liable for punishment under the
                   provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, sentenced them to
                   undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks each and to pay a fine
                   of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
                   one week each.     However, considering the prayer made by the
                   appellant and other contemnors and their undertaking, the learned
                   single Judge having felt that it is not desirable for sending the
                   contemnors to jail, directed them to give an undertaking to visit
                   the Social Welfare, S.T. Welfare and B.C. Welfare Hostels for boys
                   and girls in the Districts assigned thereunder to each contemnor, in
                   any one Sunday in every month for total 12 months and spend
                   some time with the students/wards of the said hostels to motivate
                   them and arrange lunch or dinner (a sumptuous meal) by spending
                   their personal money. It is also submitted that in view of the
                   undertaking given by the contemnors as directed, the learned
                   single Judge remitted the punishment and fixed the schedule for
                   each of the contemnors to perform the said obligation in the
                   Districts shown against their names.
 Sl.   DATE                                   ORDER                                    OFFICE
No.                                                                                    NOTE
                The appellant herein is respondent No.2 in the contempt case.

According to the learned Senior counsel, such measure of punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not permissible.

Having heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, prima facie, we are convinced with the submissions in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & another, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 409. In para 24 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"Thus, under the existing legislation dealing with contempt of court, the High Courts and Chief Courts were vested with the power to try a person for committing contempt of court and to punish him for established contempt. The legislation itself prescribed the nature and type, as well as the extent of, punishment which could be imposed on a contemnor by the High Courts or the Chief Courts. The second proviso to Section 4 of the 1952 Act (supra) expressly restricted the powers of the Courts not to "impose any sentence in excess of what is specified in the section" for any contempt either of itself or of a court subordinate to it."

The above principle has been followed in a later decision in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian & others reported in (2001) 7 SCC

549. Since the contempt case was taken up by the learned single Judge Suo motu, notice need not go to the opposite parties. We have requested the learned Advocate General to assist this Court.

Post this matter after eight weeks.

The order of the learned single Judge dated 31.03.2022 in C.C.No.1209 of 2021 requiring the appellant-Gopala Krishna Dwivedi to visit the Social Welfare, S.T. Welfare and B.C. Welfare Hostels for boys and girls in Krishna District in any one Sunday in every month for total 12 months and spend some time with the students/wards of the said hostels to motivate them and arrange lunch or dinner (a sumptuous meal) by spending his personal money, is hereby suspended till the next date of hearing.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

Nn