Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1839 OF 2013

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal                             …..Appellant  

Versus  

Neeraj Kumar & Anr.                                         ..Respondents  

                    J U D G M E N T  

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment  

and final order dated 30.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at  

New Delhi in Contempt Case (Criminal) No. 8 of 2007 rejecting the  

said application filed by the appellant.  

2. Facts and circumstances as stated by the parties, giving rise to  

this appeal are that:

A. The  appellant  had  been  working  as  Deputy  Director,  

Enforcement  of  Delhi  Zone  under  the  Directorate  of  Enforcement  

from 6.11.1996, and in that capacity, he conducted raids on various

Page 2

suspects  under the provisions  of  Foreign Exchange Regulation Act  

(FERA),  1973  including  one  S.C.  Barjatya,  an  alleged  Hawala  

operator,  as he had received an information that an amount of US$  

1.5  lakhs  had  been  transferred  from  the  account  of  Royalle  

Foundation in Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich to the account of one  

S.K. Kapoor in HSBC Bank, Hong Kong. Subsequently, the said Shri  

S.C. Barjatya filed a complaint that the above transaction is forged  

and he  is  being falsely  implicated.   In  view thereof,  case  No.  RC  

S18/E0001/1999  was  registered  on  29.1.1999  against  unknown  

officers  of  the  Enforcement  Directorate  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  

`ED’)  and  while  enquiring  into  this  complaint,  the  statements  of  

various other  persons were recorded.  Passport  of the appellant was  

seized  on  4.3.1999.  The  statement  of  one  Abhishek  Verma  was  

recorded under  Section 161 of  Code of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973,  

(hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.’), who had been arrested in that  

case.  He was later  enlarged on bail  by the court and his statement  

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he had stated that  

the appellant had been threatening him and extorting money from him  

while seeking information in respect of dealings in foreign exchange.   

2

Page 3

B. A look out notice was issued against the appellant through the  

Interpol  as  he  was  absconding.   The  appellant  was  arrested  on  

23.12.1999 from Saharanpur where he was staying in a hotel under a  

fictitious name. The appellant was remanded to police custody for 5  

days in the first instance, which was later extended to another 2 days  

till  31.12.1999. During the police custody,  the appellant  alleged to  

have been physically abused and humiliated.   

C. The appellant  moved a bail  application on 24.12.1999 which  

came for  hearing on 3.1.2000 and 4.1.2000.  During the course of  

proceedings,  the  learned  Special  Judge  was  shown  a  document  

purported  to  have  been  emanated  from  the  Interpol  Singapore  on  

29.12.1999 and sent to Interpol New Delhi in response to a requisition  

sent by Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the  

`CBI’) through the Interpol Delhi on 16.12.1999.  On the basis of the  

said information received from Interpol Singapore, the respondents-  

officers  argued  that  the  appellant  had  been  in  Singapore  from  

10.2.1999  to  14.2.1999  and  though  his  passport  which  had  been  

impounded  did  not  contain  any  such  stamp,  and  therefore  he  was  

possessing and using a forged passport with the same number. The  

3

Page 4

Special Judge accepted the submissions and rejected the application of  

the appellant for bail vide order dated 6.1.2000.   

D. The respondents had been seeking more information from the  

Interpol Singapore and in response to the same, a reply dated 7.1.2000  

was  received  that  earlier  communication  dated  29.12.1999  was  

incorrect  and  the  appellant  did  not  enter  into  Singapore  on  the  

aforesaid  dates  i.e.  10.2.1999  to  14.2.1999.   The  said  information  

dated  7.1.2000  was  further  confirmed  by  Interpol  Singapore  vide  

letter dated 12.1.2000.

In further  correspondence,  the  Interpol  Singapore admitted  

its mistake vide communication dated 12.1.2000.

E. Respondent No. 2 filed a remand application dated 13.1.2000  

seeking further judicial custody of the appellant for 14 days.  In that  

application  also,  it  was  not  disclosed  that  the  respondents  had  

received a  communication  from  Interpol  Singapore  that  earlier  

communication informing about the appellant  being in Singapore  

was not correct.  The respondents  continued to withhold the said  

information and did not bring it to the notice of the court.  Even in a  

bail application filed by the appellant on 25.1.2000, claims were made  

that the appellant had not gone to Singapore on the aforesaid dates.  

4

Page 5

Reply  to  the  said  application  was  filed  by  the  CBI  on  27.1.2000  

denying the said facts without bringing the real facts to the knowledge  

of the court.  It was only on 27.1.2000 when the appellant’s counsel  

insisted that the appellant had not gone to Singapore in February 1999  

that the respondent no. 2, the investigating officer, admitted that the  

appellant did not visit Singapore on the dates as alleged earlier and the  

investigating  agency  had  subsequently  received  information  from  

Interpol  Singapore  that  the  information  furnished  earlier  was  not  

factually correct.   After taking into consideration the above fact, the  

appellant  was granted bail  wherein all  the aforesaid facts had been  

incorporated in the bail order dated 29.1.2000.   

F. As per the appellant, on 26.7.2000, in another case before the  

Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  he  came  to  know  about  the  

subsequent communication sent by Interpol Singapore in this respect  

and thus, the appellant filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 600 of 2001  

before the High Court of Delhi to take action against the respondents  

which was disposed of vide order dated 28.5.2001 observing that the  

appellant  may seek relief  before the court  of  Special  Judge where,  

according to the appellant, the CBI had misrepresented or concealed  

the correct information.  Thus, in view of the observations made by  

5

Page 6

the High Court, the appellant filed an application under  Section 340  

read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. on 1.6.2001 before the Special Judge  

for taking action against the respondents for suppressing the material  

facts.   However, the said application was dismissed by the Special  

Judge vide order dated 14.2.2002.  

G. Aggrieved, the appellant took the matter to the High Court by  

filing an Appeal No. 199 of 2002.  The High Court disposed of the  

said appeal vide judgment and order dated 16.12.2005 remanding the  

matter to the Special Judge to hear the parties on the application dated  

1.6.2001 only on the issue of initiation of contempt proceedings and  

to  answer  the  same  in  accordance  with  law.  In  view  thereof,  the  

Special Judge heard the said application and dismissed the same vide  

order dated 5.2.2007.

H. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Contempt Petition No.  

8 of 2007 on 16.5.2007 before the High Court of Delhi under Article  

215 of the Constitution read with the provisions of the Contempt of  

Courts  Act,  1971  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘Act  1971’).   On  

receiving notice in the said case, the respondents filed reply.

6

Page 7

I. The High Court disposed of the said petition after hearing the  

parties vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.2007 observing  

that the suppression or misrepresentation was not deliberate.  

Hence, this appeal.  

3. Shri  Ram  Jethmalani,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  on  

behalf of the appellant has submitted that the respondents had been  

fully  aware,  after  receiving  the  communication  from  Interpol  

Singapore,  that  information  furnished  to  them  earlier  by  the  said  

Singapore authorities was not factually correct. In spite of the fact that  

the  matter  had  been  listed  time  and  again  before  learned  Special  

Judge,  such  information  was  withheld  and  being  under  the  same  

impression that the appellant had travelled to Singapore, his judicial  

custody  was  extended.  Even  in  the  application  filed  by  the  

respondents for remand for a further period, such a material fact had  

not  been  disclosed.  It  was  only  at  a  much  later  stage  when  the  

appellant had already suffered unwarranted judicial custody and the  

counsel for the appellant had been insisting that appellant did not visit  

Singapore  between  10.2.1999  and  14.2.1999,  the  Investigating  

Officer/Respondent no.2 revealed that they have received information  

from  the  Interpol  Singapore  on  7.1.2000  that  the  version  of  the  

7

Page 8

appellant was correct. Therefore, the appellant had been subjected to  

humiliation, insult and remained in judicial custody for a long time.  

Even  the  remand  application  dated  13.1.2000  was  filed  without  

disclosing  such  a  fact.  The  appellant  could  be  bailed  out  only  on  

29.1.2000 after remaining in jail for 36 days. It was the solemn duty  

of the investigating officer not to suppress the material fact from the  

court  and  the  appellant  would  not  have  to  face  36  days  judicial  

custody in jail.  The appellant  had been approaching the authorities  

and courts time and again, however, could not get any relief from any  

authority  or  court.   The  application  of  contempt  filed  earlier  was  

rejected  by  the  Special  Court.  When  the  appellant  approached  the  

High Court by filing a criminal writ petition, the case was remanded  

to the Special Court  on a particular issue. After remand, the case was  

considered and the same was also dismissed by the Special  Judge.  

The High Court while dealing with the case under Article 215 of the  

Constitution,  without  giving  any  reason  whatsoever,  recorded  a  

findings  of  fact  that  there  was  no  deliberate  attempt  to  cause  any  

prejudice  to  the  appellant.   Hence,  a  finding  not  based  on  any  

reasoning or substantiated by any evidence, is not a judgment-in-fact.  

Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.  

8

Page 9

4. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf  

of both the respondents, has vehemently opposed the appeal raising a  

large number of issues,  inter-alia, issue of limitation, jurisdiction of  

the court to entertain the contempt application; and referred to a large  

number of judgments to submit that the findings of fact recorded by  

the  High  Court  that  there  was  no  deliberate  attempt  to  cause  any  

prejudice to the appellant was correct.  Respondents had been working  

with all sincerity and their work has always been appreciated and a  

large number of certificates to that extent had been issued to them.  

Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.  

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the records.  

6. There  is  no  dispute  on  the  factual  matrix  of  the  case.  The  

appellant had been arrested on the suspicion that he was having two  

passports and on the strength of one of them, he had visited Singapore  

between 10.2.1999 and 14.2.1999 and such a fact had been affirmed  

by  the  Interpol  Singapore  on  queries  from  the  Indian  authorities.  

However,  on  7.1.2000,  the  Interpol  Singapore  by  a  Memo  dated  

7.1.2000  informed  the  Indian  investigating  agency  that  the  

9

Page 10

information furnished by them earlier was factually incorrect and the  

appellant had not visited Singapore between 10.2.1999 and 14.2.1999.  

Subsequent thereto, the appellant filed a Criminal Writ Petition No.  

600 of 2001 before the Delhi High Court; a case before the Special  

Judge, an appeal before the High Court and again the matter had been  

agitated  before  the  Special  Judge.  After  loosing  the  battle,  the  

appellant  approached  the  High  Court  under  Article  215  of  the  

Constitution.   The  appellant  was  arrested  on  23.12.1999  and  was  

released on bail on 24.1.2000, thus, he remained in jail for 36 days.  

7. It  is  also  on  record  that  the  Singapore  authorities  had  

apologized for furnishing wrong information by them.  The judgment  

and order dated 5.2.2007 of the learned Special Judge makes it crystal  

clear that the learned Special Judge had given an elaborate judgment  

deciding two issues, namely, one relating to limitation under Section  

20 of the Act 1971 and, secondly, as to whether the suppression of  

material fact was intentional or motivated on the part of respondents  

and after hearing the matter, the learned Special Judge negated  both  

the issues against the appellant holding that the application was barred  

by  limitation  as  provided  under  Section  20  of  the  Act  1971  as  

cognizance could not be taken after one year of the date on which the  

10

Page 11

contempt had been committed. On the  second issue, a finding has  

been recorded that there was no suppression of material fact by the  

respondents intentionally and deliberately as there was no motive to  

obstruct the administration of justice or to interfere with due course of  

proceedings.  

8. Earlier before the appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 199 of  

2002, the same issues had been agitated and the matter was remanded  

to the learned Special Court to decide the specific issue so far as it  

relates to the initiation of contempt proceedings vide its judgment and  

order  dated 16.12.2005.   Even the  order  dated  29.1.2000 makes  it  

evident that the first bail application of the appellant was rejected on  

6.1.2000 considering the  issues  raised  by the  investigating  agency,  

particularly  the  Interpol  message  suggesting  that  the  appellant  had  

visited Singapore on his passport no. S-243227 and remained there  

from 10.2.1999 to 14.2.1999, whereas the passport impounded by the  

CBI during the investigation did not show any entry relating to his  

aforesaid  travel  to  Singapore.  However,  on  27.1.2000,  the  

investigating officer admitted before the said court that a message was  

received from Interpol Singapore to the effect that the appellant did  

not visit Singapore from 10.2.1999 to 14.2.1999.   

11

Page 12

9. The High Court while dealing with the contempt petition under  

Article 215 of the Constitution has taken note of the facts referred to  

hereinabove as well as of the respective submissions advanced by the  

learned counsel for the parties,  inter-alia, the submissions advanced  

by the respondents in respect  of maintainability of the petition and  

limitation  etc.  However,  without  adverting  to  any of  the  issues  so  

raised, the court abruptly came to the conclusion that the respondents  

did not intentionally suppress the material facts.  The relevant part of  

the judgment reads as under:  

“We find that although information was available with   the  CBI  that  the  petitioner  had  not  visited  Singapore   prior to 13.1.2000 yet there appears to be no deliberate   attempt to cause any prejudice to the petitioner.   The  application for bail which came up before the Court was   supported by an affidavit  setting out  the facts that  the   petitioner  had not  visited Singapore  during the period   when his passport was with the CBI which fact was duly   confirmed by the public prosecutor.  In that view of the   matter,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  there  was  no   deliberate  concealment  of  material  to  the  prejudice  of   the  petitioner.   The  petition  is,  therefore,  dismissed.”   (Emphasis added)

10. The respondents before this Court had also adverted to the issue  

of the procedure adopted by the appellant moving the Trial Court as  

well as the High Court in contempt matter and the procedure adopted  

12

Page 13

by those Courts and also to the issue of limitation. It is submitted that  

the High Court could not have proceeded with the case under Article  

215 of the Constitution ignoring the limitation prescribed under the  

Act 1971.  More so, in a criminal case where two views are possible  

the court must decide in favour of the person proceeded against.  In  

order to fortify his submissions,  Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior  

counsel  placed  reliance  on  the  judgments  in  Pallav  Sheth  v.  

Custodian & Ors.,  (2001) 7 SCC 549;  Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi  

Gulati & Anr., (2001) 7 SCC 530; J.R. Parashar, Advocate & Ors.  

v.  Prasant  Bhushan,  Advocate  & Ors.,  (2001)  6  SCC  735;  and  

Biman Bose v. State of W.B. & Ors., (2004) 13 SCC 95.  

11. This  Court  in  Sahdeo  alias  Sahdeo Singh  v.  State  of  Uttar  

Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 705, after placing reliance on a large  

number of earlier judgments of this Court, held that proceedings of  

contempt are quasi criminal in nature and the burden and standard of  

proof required is the same as in criminal cases.  Charges have to be  

proved  beyond  reasonable  doubt  and  alleged  contemnor  becomes  

entitled  to  the  benefit  of  doubt  as  it  would  be  very  hazardous  to  

impose sentence in contempt proceedings on some probabilities.  

13

Page 14

12. In Dr. L.P. Misra v. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 3337; Three  

Cheers Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. C.E.S.C. Ltd., AIR 2009  

SC 735; and R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2011) 5  

SCC 689,  this  Court  held that  the power under Article  215 of  the  

Constitution can be exercised only in accordance with the procedure  

prescribed by law.  

13. In view of the above, the High Court was required to examine  

as to whether the proper procedure has been adopted in bringing the  

petition under Article 215 of the Constitution and as to whether the  

limitation  as  prescribed  under  Section  20  of  the  Act  1971  was  

attracted in the case.  The High Court did not advert to any of such  

issue of paramount importance.  More so, no reasoning has been given  

to  reach  a  conclusion  that  no  deliberate  attempt  was  made  by the  

respondents to cause any prejudice to the appellant.

Thus, we are of the considered opinion that as both the parties  

had raised issues on facts as well as on law, the High Court ought to  

have dealt with the case adverting to all relevant issues, particularly  

when the appellant had made an allegation that his liberty had been  

jeopardised  by  the  respondents  by  interfering  with  the  course  of  

justice by misleading the court.

14

Page 15

 14. As a result, we set aside the judgment and order impugned and  

remit the case to the High Court to decide afresh answering all the  

factual and legal issues raised by the parties.      

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

.........................………………..J.                                                  (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

    ............. ………………………J.

                  (S.A. BOBDE) New Delhi, November 22, 2013  

15