Court On Its Own Motion vs Mr. Harish Abrol, Municipal ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 931 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. I have had the benefit of going through the judgment of my learned Brother, Manmohan Sarin, J, and concur with him on the question of maintaining the dignity of court. I also hold that it is imperative and essential to keep the administration of justice pure, undefied and its course not hindered or obstructed in any manner. However, in the present case I find it difficult to hold Shri Harish Abrol guilty of having committed contempt. I feel that the affidavit of unconditional apology filed by him ought to be accepted as a genuine apology intended as an expression of regret and penitence.

2. It is not essential for me to narrate the allegations and counter-allegations. Suffice it to say that from the affidavit filed by Shri Harish Abrol it appears that on 16.7.2003 at around 10.30 a.m., Shri Abrol, being an elected Councilor and Chairman of S.P. Zone, was on his daily round when he saw 100 or 150 people standing on the road. The Special Magistrate was holding mobile court and issuing challans for violation of MCD Act. The Special Magistarate on being informed that the Chairman, S.P. Zone has come, invited Shri Abrol to the dais to sit along side. The Magistrate at that time had already ASI, Brijesh Kumar on the dais with him. From this it appears that the Special Magistrate began conducting the court giving an impression to those who were attending his court that the proceedings were being conducted by a policeman, a Magistrate and a Councilor.

3. During the proceedings, on the quantum of fine, there appears to be some discussion between Mr. Abrol and the Special magistrate which apparently annoyed the Magistrate, who then shot out a complaint dated 4.8.2003. In the complaint of 4.8.2003, no incident of 1.8.2003 was mentioned. It is because of this that my Brother has chosen to disregard the incident of 1.8.2003 which forms part of the petition presented before this court to initiate proceedings for contempt.

4. Another startling action taken by the Special Magistrate was to go public and give an interview to the 'Outlook' on 29.3.2004 accusing Shri Abrol of various corrupt practices besides interference with judicial proceedings.

5. During the course of hearing, since the matter had gone on from 8.12.2003 and Shri Abrol was present in court on each and every hearing, namely, 15 to be precise, it was thought proper that counsel should consider taking recourse to filing an apology. On 5.4.2005, Shri Abrol tendered an unqualified apology.

6. Looking at the nature of the proceedings and the conduct of the Special Magistrate in inviting an ASI and the Councilor to participate in judicial matters, I feel the Special Magistrate had demeaned the authority of law and brought about a situation which he could not control and subsequently complained of as having caused interference in delivery of justice. My Brother has adverted to this aspect while holding that the Special Magistrate failed to exercise the requisite judicial restraint by offerings his views to the media in respect of discharge of his judicial functions and the alleged illegal activities of Shri Abrol and directed that copy of this order be placed on the record of the Special Magistrate maintained by this court.

7. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that it would be highly unfair to put the entire blame on Shri Abrol. Consequently, I am of the opinion that no contempt has been committed by Sri Abrol who was invited by the Special Magistrate to participate in the proceedings along with ASI Brijesh Kumar, yet since Shri Abrol, to put an end to these torturous never ending proceedings, has tendered his unqualified apology which appears to me as genuine. I think the same should be accepted. Accordingly, I accept the apology tendered and discharge the contemnor, Shri Hrish Abrol from the proceedings initiated against him in Criminal C. Ref. 5 of 2003. The Criminal Reference is disposed of.

At the stage of pronouncement of judgment, I was taken aback and thereafter rather amused to note that my learned Brother, Manmohan Sarin, J., has delivered a changed judgment which was never circulated to me. He has indeed loaded his judgment with more authority. The only aspect, which apparently has escaped notice, is that the apology tendered was as a result of the court persuading counsel to advise his client to tender an unconditional apology. That having come on record, it is most unfair to teat the apology against the contemnor while convicting him for contempt. I am deliberately not writing a new judgment since, in my opinion, it would not be correct thing to do so. The difference of opinion is on - whether the apology which was virtually extracted by the court should be accepted or not. I, for one, accept the apology tendered and discharge the contemnor.