Telangana High Court
Shiramsetty Saidulu, Nalgonda Dist. vs Dantala Praveen, Nalgonda Dist. on 8 April, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
*THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI
SENGUPTA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
+ CONTEMPT APPEAL No.1 of 2014
% 07-03-2014
# Shiramsetty Saidulu
... Appellant/Contemnor
Vs.
$ Dantala Praveen
...
Respondent/Petitioner
! COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT : Sri M.K.Raj Kumar
^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT : Sri K.Narasimha Chari
<GIST
>HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1367.
A.I.R. 1936 Privy Council 253 (2)
(1876) 1 Ch D 426
1994 (6) SCC 332
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
CONTEMPT APPEAL No.1 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta )
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and sentence
of the learned single Judge dated 16th December 2013, in a contempt
proceedings. The learned single Judge has awarded maximum
punishment envisaged under Section 12 (1) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter the Act) by sentencing the
appellant/contemnor to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of
six months and with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
The contempt proceedings are always between the alleged
contemnor and the Court. This contempt proceedings has arisen,
pursuant to the application made by the respondent herein. The
order, violation of which is complained, is as follows:
"Pending further orders, respondent No.10 is restrained
from alienating or in any manner encumbering the suit
schedule property in favour of third parties."
In the contempt application, it is stated that in disobedience of
the aforesaid order, as many as 18 conveyances have been
executed by the appellant (who was respondent No.10 in Civil
Revision Case) to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of
eighteen several third parties. The aforesaid fact of execution of
conveyances for alienating the property has been admitted in the
counter-affidavit. It is also admitted that these conveyances are
executed in breach of the aforesaid interim order. Any one can think
that the contempt proceedings and conviction is a matter of course in
given case of this nature, and perhaps it was the understanding of
the learned single Judge also as reflected from the impugned order.
Learned Counsel for the appellant says that the conviction is
not in accordance with due process of law.
We agree with the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that
constitutional mandate provides procedure safeguard that even a
criminal of heinous crime is to be brought to book in accordance with
the procedure established by law. We have to see whether this
constitutional mandate has been observed in this case or not noting
contention of the learned lawyer for the appellant. Contempt
proceedings are of two kinds, namely, civil and criminal. It appears
from the statement and nature of the fact disclosed in the petition, it
is a case of civil contempt. The definition of the Civil Contempt
provided under Section 2 (b) of the Act is as follows:
"Civil Contempt means willful disobedience to any
judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a
Court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a Court."
Therefore, while making the application for contempt in this
Court, there must be a prima facie allegation of willful disobedience
to order of the Court in this case. Moreover, the Rules framed by
this Court provides for requirements to plead in the petition for
charging a person of commission of contempt. Rule 7 of the
Contempt of Courts (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Rules, 1980 is as
follows:
"7. (1) Every petition under rule 5 (b) and (c) shall
contain:
(a) the name, description and place of residence of
the petitioner or petitioners and of the person charged;
(b ) the nature and details of the contempt alleged,
and such material facts, including the date or dates of
commission of the alleged contempt, as may be necessary
for the proper determination of the case;
(c) the details of the petition previously made by the
petitioner on the same facts, if any, and the result thereof.
(2) Where the petitioner relies upon a document or
documents in his possession or power and refers to them in
the petition in support thereof, he shall file such document
or documents or true copies thereof duly authenticated
along with the petition.
(3) No Court-fee shall be payable on the petition or
on any document filed in the contempt proceedings.
Therefore, the procedure established by law, as it could be
culled out from the aforesaid legal provision, in the contempt
application, there must be a clear prima facie case of willful,
deliberate violation of the order with particulars as to the date, nature
and details of the contempt so that the person, who is charged with
the commission of the contempt, should understand for which he is
sought to be proceeded with by the Court. {See B.K.Kar V. Hon'ble
the Chief Justice and his companion Justices of the Orissa High
Court and another (A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1367)}. We have examined this
case.
Learned Counsel for the respondent, of course, says that the
admission of the appellant is good enough that there is a willful and
deliberate violation of the order passed by the learned single Judge.
We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. We think
that if the law requires a thing to be done in one manner, it shall be
done in that manner alone and not at all {See Nazir Ahmad Vs. King-
Emperor (AIR 1936 Privy Council 253 (2)); Taylor Vs. Taylor (1876)
1 Ch D 426)}. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar set of facts in
the case of Niaz Mohamad Vs. State of Haryana held that it
cannot be said that there was contempt. Therefore, in the contempt
petition, there should have been a clear charge with a commission of
the contempt, namely, willful and deliberate violation of the order
together with relevant particulars. In this contempt application, this
element is absolutely missing. Therefore, we think that the learned
single Judge should not have drawn up a contempt case on this
sketchy petition and at the threshold it should have been dismissed.
No petition for contempt should be taken against any person unless
the person knows what is the charge against him. In order to draw
an analogy, in a First Information Report, there must be a prima facie
disclosure of the offence with clarity and then only investigation can
be started and then trial could be commenced if the charge is
framed. Unless there is a disclosure of offence, no question of any
investigation, not to speak of even framing charges. In this case,
there is no prima facie disclosure of commission of contempt. Only,
it appears simple disobedience. The element of willful or deliberate
violation is a pre-condition to charge a person with contempt.
Moreover, we notice that the learned single Judge did not
come to the fact-finding that there has been willful disobedience of
the order. In a criminal contempt, the element of intention to violate
the order has to be found by the learned single Judge. Similarly,
we do not find that the learned single Judge has come to such
conclusion of intentional and willful disobedience of the order. The
Court must be satisfied that there is disobedience and the same is
willful. When the fact-finding of essential element is missing in the
order of the learned single Judge, we think that the judgment and
sentence against the appellant cannot be sustained at all nor we can
support the conclusion that the appellant is guilty for contempt of
Court.
As we have said that unless there is a prima facie disclosure
of commission of contempt with clear facts as required under law, no
Court has jurisdiction to entertain the contempt petition. In that
sense, the order has been passed without having a jurisdictional
fact. This contempt application, therefore, should have been
dismissed. However, when we notice that there is a clear admission
of execution of the deed of conveyances and further the learned
Counsel for the appellant says that his client is agreeable to take
steps for cancellation of the documents, to meet the ends of justice,
we should pass order of cancellation of the conveyances.
We feel that the reason for passing of the order is that a law
breaker cannot be allowed to reap his illegal act just because he is
escaped from rigour of the Contempt proceedings. The order of
injunction was to restrain a particular person from alienating the
property in favour of third parties. Thus, he was legally incompetent
to do so. To clarify it, at the time of execution of deed of
conveyances, the appellant was incompetent under law to convey
the property, meaning thereby he had no disposable interest in the
property at that time. Accordingly, all these conveyances are null
and void. Of course, we are not unmindful of the alleged right of the
vendees, but Court's order cannot be ignored, irrespective of
anything. Accordingly, we cancel all the instruments executed,
admittedly, in violation of the order of injunction passed by the
learned single Judge. The vendees, of course will be entitled to take
legal steps against the vendors in accordance with law including
approaching this Court. Therefore, the appellant shall produce this
judgment and order to the concerned Registering Authority. In
addition thereto, the office of this Court shall forward a copy of this
judgment and order to the concerned Registering Authority, who shall
act upon and do the needful in accordance with law.
The Contempt Appeal is disposed of with above directions.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed. No
order as to costs.
___________________
K.J.
SENGUPTA, CJ
__________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
07-03-.2014
Gsn
NOTE: L.R. COPY TO BE MARKED: YES
1994 (6) SCC 332
