REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1376  OF 2004

Muthu Karuppan           .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & Anr.              .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)  This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order  

dated 29.10.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High  

Court of Judicature at Madras in Contempt Petition No. 397 of  

2001 whereby the High Court  held  the  respondents therein  

guilty  of  the  offence  punishable  under  Section  2  (c)  of  the  

Contempt  of  Courts  Act,  1971  (in  short  ‘the  Act’)  and  

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days under  

Section 12 of the Act.   

1

2) Brief Facts:

(a) Parithi  Ilamvazhuthi-Respondent  No.  1  herein  was  

elected as Member of Legislative Assembly (in short ‘MLA’) of  

the Egmore Constituency,  Chennai  in the Elections held on  

10.05.2001  to  the  Tamil  Nadu  State  Legislative  Assembly.  

Large scale violence and several attempts of booth capturing  

were reported on the day of election.  In respect of the same,  

Crime No.  958 of  2001 was  registered against  his  opposite  

party candidate John Pandian and others for various offences.  

Similarly,  Crime  No.  960  of  2001  was  registered  against  

Respondent  No.  1  by  one  David  for  various  offences.  John  

Pandian was arrested on 10.05.2001 and remanded to judicial  

custody.   Respondent  No.  1  filed  an  application  for  

anticipatory bail being Crl. M.P. No. 6244 of 2001 before the  

Sessions  Court,  Chennai  and  the  same  was  dismissed  on  

16.05.2001 stating that the investigation is at an early stage  

and enlargement would hamper the investigation.   

(b)   On  17.05.2001,  Respondent  No.  1  was  arrested  and  

remanded  to  judicial  custody.   On  the  same  day,  Muthu  

Karuppan-the  appellant  herein  was  appointed  as  

2

Commissioner of  Police,  Greater  Chennai  City and assumed  

charge.   On  21.05.2001,  Respondent  No.  1  moved  an  

application for bail being Crl. M.P. No. 1379 of 2001 before the  

XIV Metropolitan Magistrate which was dismissed on the same  

day.  On 22.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 moved an application  

for bail being Crl. M.P. No. 6277 of 2001 before the Principal  

Sessions Court, Chennai mainly on the ground that he has to  

attend the Assembly which has commenced on 22.05.2001 to  

take oath as MLA.   On 23.05.2001,  Respondent  No.  1 was  

granted conditional bail by the Sessions Judge.   

(c)   On  24.05.2001,  Rajendra  Kumar,  Inspector  of  Police,  

(L&O),  Tamil  Nadu-Respondent  No.  2  herein,  filed  an  

application for cancellation of bail being Crl. O.P. No. 9352 of  

2001 before the High Court of Madras and sought for stay of  

bail granted to Respondent No. 1 herein.  On the same day,  

learned  single  Judge  of  the  High Court  stayed the order  of  

grant of bail and ordered notice to Respondent No. 1 on the  

ground that the victim, namely, David is in a serious condition  

and  the  accused  is  in  police  custody.   On  28.05.2001,  on  

receipt of  the said notice,  Respondent No. 1 filed a counter  

3

affidavit  submitting that the statement of  Respondent No. 2  

regarding police custody is false.  On 29.05.2001, Respondent  

No. 2 filed his reply affidavit admitting that it was a mistake by  

oversight and the same is neither willful nor wanton.   

(d)  On 30.05.2001, the petition for cancellation of bail  was  

dismissed by the High Court holding that no ground was made  

out  for  cancellation  of  the  bail.  After  the  order  dated  

30.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 filed Contempt Application No.  

397  of  2001  before  the  High  Court  stating  that  on  the  

direction, supervision and knowledge of the appellant herein,  

Respondent  No.  2  moved  an  application  to  cancel  the  bail  

granted  to  him  on  the  basis  of  false  statement  thereby  

prevented him from attending the Assembly.    

(e)  On 29.10.2004, the Division Bench of the High Court held  

the respondents therein guilty of the offence punishable under  

Section 2(c) of the Act and sentenced them to undergo simple  

imprisonment for 7 days under Section 12 of the Act.   

(f)   Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court,  

appellant herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 2004 before  

this Court and on 13.12.2004, this Court admitted the appeal  

4

and stayed the operation of the impugned order insofar as it  

relates to the appellant.  Respondent No. 2 also filed Criminal  

Appeal No. 1500 of 2004 before this Court and by order dated  

05.01.2005, this Court dismissed the appeal on merits holding  

that the case of the Commissioner of Police stands entirely on  

a different footing.       

3) Heard Mr. A.K. Ganguli,  learned senior counsel for the  

appellant  and  Mr.  Altaf  Ahmed,  learned  senior  counsel  for  

respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for  

respondent No.2.

4) Before  going  into  the  correctness  or  otherwise  of  the  

impugned order of the Division Bench punishing the appellant  

for the offence under Section 2(c) of the Act and sentencing  

him  under  Section  12  of  the  Act  to  undergo  simple  

imprisonment for 7 days, it is useful to refer the facts leading  

to  initiation  of  contempt  proceeding.   It  is  the  grievance  of  

Respondent No. 1 that after the grant of bail, Respondent No.  

2 filed a false affidavit in Criminal O.P. No. 9352 of 2001 that  

the police custody had been ordered by the XIV Metropolitan  

Magistrate on 23.05.2001, based on which, the learned single  

5

Judge  of  the  High  Court  stayed  the  order  of  grant  of  bail  

passed  in  favour  of  Respondent  No.  1.   After  preliminary  

examination, the Division Bench, by order dated 20.06.2001,  

issued notice to Respondent No. 2 herein to show cause as to  

why contempt proceeding against him should not be initiated  

for  having made  false  statement  with intent  to  mislead  the  

Court.  In the same proceeding,  the  Division Bench directed  

issuance  of  notice  to  the  Commissioner  of  Police-appellant  

herein as to the averments of an elected MLA being in police  

custody  could  not  reasonably  have  been  made  prima  facie  

without the knowledge of the Commissioner, more so, when  

the election had just taken place and the elected member was  

required to take oath, but by reason of his detention was being  

prevented from taking oath.  In the same paragraph, it was  

further stated that the extent to which the Commissioner had  

knowledge about the filing of the petition for cancellation of  

bail, the instructions, if any, he had given in that regard, the  

persons to whom such instructions had been given and the  

nature  of  instructions  shall  also  be  disclosed  by  the  

Commissioner in his affidavit.

6

5) Based on the notice issued by the Division Bench in its  

order dated 20.06.2001, the appellant-Commissioner of Police,  

Chennai City, at the relevant time and the second respondent  

Inspector  of  Police  (L&O),  Chennai  filed  separate  affidavits  

explaining their stand.  

6) In order to understand the above issue, it is relevant to  

refer Section 2(c) of the Act which defines criminal contempt  

as:

“(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether  by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible  representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing  of any other act whatsoever which-

(i) scandalizes  or  tends  to  scandalize,  of  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.”  

7) Giving  false  evidence  by  filing  false  affidavit  is  an evil  

which  must  be  effectively  curbed  with  a  strong  hand.  

Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient  

in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent, but there  

must  be  a  prima  facie  case  of  “deliberate  falsehood”  on  a  

7

matter  of  substance  and the  court  should  be  satisfied  that  

there is a reasonable foundation for the charge.

8) In  a  series  of  decisions,  this  Court  held  that  the  

enquiry/contempt proceedings should be initiated by the court  

in exceptional circumstances where the court is of the opinion  

that  perjury  has  been committed  by  a  party  deliberately  to  

have  some beneficial  order  from the  court.   There  must  be  

grounds of a nature higher than mere surmise or suspicion for  

initiating such proceedings.  There must be distinct evidence  

of  the commission of  an offence by such a person as mere  

suspicion  cannot  bring  home  the  charge  of  making  false  

statement,  more so,  the court has to determine as on facts  

whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to enquire into  

offence which appears to have been committed.  

9) The contempt proceedings being quasi criminal in nature,  

burden  and  standard  of  proof  is  the  same  as  required  in  

criminal  cases.   The charges have  to be framed as per  the  

statutory  rules  framed  for  the  purpose  and  proved  beyond  

reasonable doubt keeping in mind that the alleged contemnor  

is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  doubt.   Law  does  not  permit  

8

imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings on mere  

probabilities,  equally,  the  court  cannot  punish  the  alleged  

contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and  

surmises.  As observed above, the contempt proceeding being  

quasi criminal  in  nature  require  strict  adherence  to  the  

procedure  prescribed  under  the  rules  applicable  in  such  

proceedings.

10) In exercise  of  the  powers conferred on the  High Court  

under Articles 215 and 225 of the Constitution of India and in  

terms  of  Section  23  of  the  Act,  the  Madras  High  Court  

Contempt of Court Rules, 1975 (in short ‘the Rules’) have been  

framed.   The  said  Rules  prescribe  procedure  for  initiating  

contempt and various steps to be adhered to.  By drawing our  

attention to the Rules, Mr. Ganguli, learned senior counsel for  

the  appellant  submitted  that  Rules  4 and 8 have  not  been  

complied with.  By emphasizing the principles in paras 12 and  

16 of the decision of this Court in R.S. Sujatha vs. State of  

Karnataka  &  Ors., 2010  (12)  Scale  556,  learned  senior  

counsel submitted that the contempt proceedings being quasi  

criminal in nature require strict adherence to the procedure  

9

prescribed under the rules applicable to such proceedings.  He  

also pointed out that while sending notice, relevant documents  

have not been enclosed and the consent of Advocate General  

was not obtained for initiating contempt proceedings against  

the  appellant.   Insofar  as  the  documents  referred  to  being  

certain  orders  of  the  court,  no  serious  objection  was taken  

note of for not sending the same.

Consent of the Advocate General

11) The  relevant  provision  which  deals  with  cognizance  of  

criminal  contempt  in  other  cases  is  Section  15  of  the  Act  

which reads as under:

“15. Cognizance  of  criminal  contempt  in  other  cases.—(1)  In  the  case  of  a  criminal  contempt,  other  than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme  Court  or  the High Court  may take action on its  own  motion or on a motion made by—

(a) the Advocate-General, or (b) any other person, with the consent in writing to  the Advocate-General, or (c)  in  relation  to  the  High  Court  for  the  Union  territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central  Government  may,  by  notification  in  the  Official  Gazette,  specify  in  this  behalf,  or  any  other  person, with the consent in writing of such Law  Officer.”

10

The  whole  object  of  prescribing  procedural  mode  of  taking  

cognizance is to safeguard the valuable time of the Court from  

being  wasted  by  frivolous  contempt  petitions.  In  State  of  

Kerala vs.  M.S. Mani & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 82, this Court  

held that  the  requirement of  obtaining prior  consent  of  the  

Advocate  General  in  writing  for  initiating  proceedings  of  

criminal  contempt  is  mandatory  and failure  to  obtain  prior  

consent would render the motion non-maintainable.  In case,  

a party obtains consent subsequent to filing of the petition, it  

would not cure the initial defect and thus, the petition would  

not become maintainable.

12) In Bal Thackrey vs. Harish Pimpalkhute & Anr., AIR  

2005 SC 396, this Court held that in absence of the consent of  

the Advocate General in respect of a criminal contempt filed by  

a party under Section 15 of the Act, taking suo motu action for  

contempt without a prayer, was not maintainable.

13) However, in Amicus Curiae vs. Prashant Bhushan and  

Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 592, this Court has considered the earlier  

judgments and held that in a rare case, even if the cognizance  

11

is deemed to have been taken in terms of Rule 3(c) of the Rules  

to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court,  

1975,  without  the  consent  of  the  Attorney  General  or  the  

Solicitor  General,  the  proceedings  must  be  held  to  be  

maintainable in view of the fact that the issues involved in the  

proceedings had far reaching greater ramifications and impact  

on the  administration of  justice  and on the justice  delivery  

system and the credibility of the court in the eyes of general  

public.

14) It  is  clear  from  the  recent  decision  of  this  Court  in  

Prashant Bhushan’s case (supra)  that if the issue involved  

in the proceedings had greater impact on the administration of  

justice  and  on  the  justice  delivery  system,  the  court  is  

competent to go into the contempt proceedings even without  

the consent of the Advocate General as the case may be.   

15) Now, coming to the merits of the impugned order of the  

High Court, contempt proceeding was initiated mainly on the  

basis of a false statement made on oath by Respondent No. 2  

which resulted in stay of the bail order passed by the Sessions  

12

Judge,  Chennai  in  favour  of  the  Respondent  No.  1,  and  

prevented him from taking oath in the Assembly.  Inasmuch  

as  the  High  Court  has  dealt  with  the  issue  elaborately  on  

factual aspects and we also adverted to the same in the earlier  

part of our judgment, there is no need to traverse the same  

once  again.   In  respect  of  violence  on  the  day  of  election,  

Respondent  No.  1  was  arrested  and  remanded  to  judicial  

custody  on  17.05.2001.   On  the  same  day,  that  is,  on  

17.05.2001, the appellant was appointed as Commissioner of  

Police,  Greater  Chennai  City  and  assumed  charge.   On  

21.05.2001, Respondent No. 1 moved an application for bail in  

Crl.  M.P.  No.  1379  of  2001  before  the  XIV  Metropolitan  

Magistrate  which  was  dismissed  on  the  same  day.   On  

22.05.2001,  Respondent No. 1  moved an application for bail  

before  the  Sessions  Judge  in  Crl.  M.P.  No.  6277  of  2001  

mainly  on  the  ground  that  as  the  new  Assembly  Session  

commences on 22.05.2001, he has to take oath and further  

the victim, namely, David has also been discharged from the  

hospital.   On  23.05.2001,  Respondent  No.  1  was  granted  

conditional bail by the Sessions Judge mainly on the ground  

13

that  he  has  to  take  oath  as  MLA.   It  is  further  seen  that  

against grant of bail to Respondent No. 1, Inspector of Police-

Respondent No. 2 filed an application being Crl. O.P. No. 9352  

of 2001 on 24.05.2001 for cancellation of bail with application  

for stay before the High Court.   On the same day, vacation  

Judge of the High Court stayed the order of grant of bail to  

Respondent No. 1  till 29.05.2001 on the ground that victim,  

namely,  David  is  in  serious  condition  and  the  accused  

Respondent No. 1 is in police custody.  By pointing out that  

the information furnished by Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit  

filed in support of the application for stay of the order of grant  

of bail regarding his police custody is false, Respondent No. 1  

filed a counter affidavit praying for vacation of the stay granted  

by the High Court.  On 29.05.2001, Respondent No. 2 filed his  

reply  affidavit  submitting  that  on  23.05.2001  application  

seeking police custody of other 8 accused were made and in  

the affidavit filed in support of the petition to cancel the bail,  

by oversight, it was mentioned that police custody was also  

obtained in respect of the Respondent No. 1.  He also conveyed  

to the court that it is a mistake by oversight and the same is  

14

neither  willful  nor  wanton.   On going  through the  material  

placed, the learned Single Judge, by order dated 30.05.2001,  

dismissed Crl. O.P. No. 9352 of 2001 filed by Respondent No.  

2  to  cancel  the  bail  granted  to  the  first  respondent  by  the  

Sessions Judge.  

16) The Division Bench,  based on the  materials  placed by  

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 concluded that  Respondent No. 2  

has  filed  a  false  affidavit  knowing  well  the  contents  of  the  

same are false in order to mislead the court for preventing the  

petitioner therein, an MLA, from coming out of the jail thereby  

restrained  him  from  attending  the  Assembly.   Though  

Respondent No. 2 filed Crl. Appeal No. 1500 of 2004, the same  

was dismissed by this Court on 05.01.2005.  While dismissing  

the appeal of Respondent No. 2, this Court made the following  

observation which is relevant and is reproduced hereunder:  

“Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  appeal  filed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Police  has  been  admitted  by  this  Court.   In our view, the case of  the Commissioner of  Police stands entirely on a different footing.  So far as  the appellant is concerned, we do not find any merit in  his appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”

15

17) The Division Bench, by the impugned order, proceeded  

on the fact that the Commissioner of Police-appellant herein  

was aware of the arrest of  Respondent No. 1  and also of the  

fact that as an elected MLA because of the wrong information  

by Respondent No. 2, the High Court stayed the order of bail  

and he was prevented from assuming office as MLA and dealt  

with the matter and finally convicted him under Section 2(c) of  

the Act.  It is the definite stand of the appellant that he was  

never consulted by the subordinate police officers before filing  

of the application for cancellation of bail and he was not aware  

of the contents of the said affidavit and as such he was not  

responsible.   It  is  also  his  claim  that  when  the  incorrect  

statement made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition  

was brought to his notice by Mr. Christopher Nelson, Deputy  

Commissioner of Police on 28.05.2001, he directed him to give  

instruction to  Respondent No. 2  to file a proper affidavit and  

as such, he was never a party to the said false affidavit and,  

therefore, he is not liable for contempt.

16

18) It  is  seen  from  the  written  statement  made  by  the  

appellant before the High Court that he was informed about  

the arrest of MLA-Respondent No. 1  and the same has been  

conveyed to the Speaker as well as the Chief Secretary.  It is  

the  stand  of  the  Division  Bench  that  the  Commissioner  of  

Police  must  have  been  informed  by  the  subordinate  Police  

Officers not only about the arrest of Respondent No. 1 but also  

his release by the Sessions Judge to enable him to inform the  

Speaker  and  the  Government.   However,  according  to  the  

Division  Bench,  the  Commissioner  did  not  clearly  indicate  

either in the counter affidavit or in the written statement that  

he was informed about the bail order passed by the Sessions  

Judge on 23.05.2001.  The High Court has also referred to the  

general powers of the Commissioner of Police with reference to  

certain standing orders issued by the Government.  There is  

no dispute that the Commissioner of Police being Head of the  

Police Force of the City, if he comes across the arrest/release  

of an elected MLA, he is duty bound to inform the Speaker as  

well as the Government.  However, it is his definite case and  

asserted that he was not aware of the information furnished  

17

by Respondent No. 2 for cancellation of bail  granted by the  

Sessions  Judge  and  the  ultimate  stay  order  passed  by  the  

High Court.  

19) In order to refute the claim of the Commissioner of Police,  

the  Division  Bench  heavily  relied  on  the  presence  of  K.  

Anthonisamy,  Assistant  Commissioner  of  Police  and  C.  

Chandrasekar, Deputy Commissioner of Police in the office of  

the Public Prosecutor along with  Respondent No. 2  who filed  

an affidavit praying for cancellation of the bail.  It is true that  

both  Assistant  Commissioner  of  Police  and  Deputy  

Commissioner of Police in their respective affidavits admitted  

their presence in the office of the Public Prosecutor and their  

interaction with one Mr. Raja, the then government counsel.  

It is relevant to refer the information furnished in the form of  

an  affidavit  dated  04.04.2003  by  Christopher  Nelson.  

According to him, he joined as Deputy Commissioner of Police,  

Law  and  Order,  Triplicane,  District  Chennai  City  on  

26.05.2001.  He asserted that he was not aware of the details  

of  the  case  in  question  prior  to  26.05.2001.   The  last  two  

18

paragraphs, namely, paras 6 and 7 of his affidavit filed before  

the Division Bench are relevant which read thus:

“6.  I respectfully state that Thiru K. Antony Samy, who  was  then  Assistant  Commissioner  of  Police,  (Law  &  Order),  Kilpauk  Range,  Chennai-7  informed  me  on  28052001, that the aforesaid Parithi Ilamvazhuthi had  filed a counter affidavit before the Hon’ble High Court,  seeking to reject the application of cancellation of bail  on the ground that some incorrect information was filed  by the first respondent  I was further informed that in  the  affidavit  filed  by  the  first  respondent  seeking  cancellation of bail on 24.05.2001.  It has been stated  that  for  granting  police  custody  the  XIV Metropolitan  Magistrate by his order dated 23.052001 had directed  that some accused to be produced on 28.052001.

7  I, respectfully submit that on the very same day, I  informed  the  commissioner  of  Police,  the  second  respondent  about  the  allegations  of  mistake  in  the  affidavit  filed  by  the  investigation  officer,  the  first  respondent  herein,  I  was  directed  by  the  second  respondent  herein  to  instruct  the  Assistant  Commissioner  of  Police  to  file  a  fresh  affidavit,  if  necessary before the High Court, explaining the alleged  mistake  in  the  affidavit  filed  by  the  first  respondent  earlier.    In  compliance  thereof,  I  instructed  Thiru  Antony  Samy,  the  Assistant  Commissioner  of  Police,  Law  &  Order,  Kilpauk  Range,  to  see  that  a  proper  affidavit is filed by the inspector concerned before the  Hon’ble High Court, explaining the circumstances under  which  alleged  mistake  appeared  in  the  affidavit  filed  earlier by him.  Accordingly, such an affidavit was filed  before the Hon’ble High Court on 29.052001.”

It  is  clear  at  least  from para  7  that  when  the  information  

relating  to  making  wrong  statement  at  the  instance  of  

Respondent  No.  2  was  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  

19

Commissioner of Police, he directed the Deputy Commissioner  

of Police to instruct the Assistant Commissioner of Police and  

Inspector of Police to file fresh affidavit explaining the alleged  

mistake in the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 earlier.  It is  

also  seen  that  pursuant  to  the  said  direction  of  the  

Commissioner  of  Police,  the  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Police  

instructed  one  K.  Anthonisamy,  Assistant  Commissioner  of  

Police  to  see  that  proper  affidavit  is  filed  by  the  Inspector  

concerned before the High Court explaining the circumstances  

under  which  the  mistake  appeared  in  the  affidavit  filed  on  

earlier occasion.  Pursuant to the notice by the Division Bench  

of the High Court, C. Chandrasekar, Deputy Commissioner of  

Police at Triplicane also filed an affidavit to the effect that after  

knowing  the  grant  of  bail  by  the  Principal  Sessions  Judge,  

Chennai  releasing  Respondent  No.  1  after  considering  

seriousness  of  the  case  and after  discussion with  “superior  

officers”  it  has  been  decided  to  move  an  application  for  

cancellation of the bail in the High Court.  The Division Bench  

relying on the statement of the above officer concluded that  

the Commissioner of Police was consulted and it was he who  

20

instructed  the  subordinate  Police  Officers  to  move  an  

application for stay of grant of bail.  Though in para 4, the  

deponent  of  the  affidavit,  namely,  C.  Chandrasekar  has  

mentioned that “after discussion with superior officers” it  is  

not clear whether he consulted the Commissioner of Police i.e.  

appellant herein on the relevant issue.  

20) K. Anthonisamy, Deputy Commissioner of Police, CBCID,  

Chennai  Range  who  was  working  as  an  Assistant  

Commissioner  of  Police  at  Kilpauk  Chennai  during  the  

relevant period also swore an affidavit on 24.09.2004.  In para  

4,  he  also  mentioned  that  after  discussion  with  “superior  

officers”  and  on  instructions,  it  was  decided  to  file  an  

application for cancellation of bail  in the High Court.   Here  

again,  the  Division  Bench  has  concluded  that  the  

Commissioner of Police ought to have been consulted by the  

Assistant Commissioner of Police and only with his knowledge  

petition was filed for cancellation of bail.  The above averment  

in para 4 merely mentions discussion with “superior officers”  

and  there  is  no  specific  reference  to  the  Commissioner  of  

Police who is the Head of the Police Force in the Chennai City.  

21

In the same way, in para 5 also, the deponent of the affidavit  

has mentioned that after the grant of stay by the High Court,  

he intimated the development to his superior officers.  Here  

again, he has not specifically informed the court that he had  

intimated  to  the  Commissioner  of  Police.   Like  Mr.  Nelson,  

Deputy  Commissioner  of  Police,  he  also  informed the  court  

that on coming to know the discrepancy in the affidavit dated  

24.05.2001 filed by the Inspector of Police for cancellation of  

the  bail,  he  was directed by  the  Commissioner  of  Police  to  

rectify the discrepancy immediately.  Accordingly, Respondent  

No.  2  filed  the  reply  affidavit  narrating  all  the  facts  on  

29.05.2001.  

21) The  analysis  of  affidavits  of  the  Inspector  of  Police,  

Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police  

show that  there is  no acceptable  material  that  the  affidavit  

containing wrong information filed by  Respondent  No.  2  for  

cancellation of  bail  and stay of  bail  order was made at the  

instance  of  the  Commissioner  of  Police.   We  have  already  

pointed  out  that  the  appellant  has  assumed  charge  as  the  

Commissioner of Police only on 17.05.2001 i.e. after formation  

22

of the new government.  The violence in respect of election that  

took place on 10.05.2001, particularly, the incident relating to  

Respondent No. 1 was one week before his taking over charge  

as Commissioner of Police.  It is brought to our notice that at  

the relevant time i.e. in 2001, the office of the Commissioner of  

Police  was  headed  by  him  and  there  were  4  Joint  

Commisioners of Police, 15 Deputy Commissioners of Police,  

64 Assistant Commissioners of Police besides 235 Inspectors  

of Police including SHOs of 83 Police Stations, 6 out posts and  

under whom there were 803 Sub-Inspectors of police and Spl.  

Sub-Inspectors  and  9665  Head  Constables  and  Police  

Constables.  It is further brought to our notice that the City of  

Chennai is divided into six districts and each one of them is  

headed  by  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Police  of  the  rank  of  

Superintendent  of  Police.   It  is  also  clear  that  when  the  

information about mentioning wrong statement in the affidavit  

filed by Respondent No. 2 against the grant of bail order was  

brought  to  the  notice  of  the  appellant  on  28.05.2001  by  

Deputy Commissioner of Police, namely, Christopher Nelson,  

the  appellant  herein  immediately  asked  him  to  direct  

23

Respondent No.2 to file proper affidavit before the High Court  

and clarify the matter by placing proper facts.  It is also clear  

from the affidavit of the government counsel E. Raja that he  

himself  drafted  the  affidavit  purely  on  the  instructions  of  

Respondent  No.  2  and  that  the  appellant  herein  had  no  

personal knowledge nor did he instruct the counsel to prepare  

affidavit or petition to move for cancellation of the bail.   As  

rightly pointed out by Mr. Ganguli, learned senior counsel for  

the appellant, in the later part of the order dated 20.06.2001,  

the then Division Bench ordered notice to the Commissioner of  

Police (the appellant herein) seeking an explanation about the  

serious allegations made by  Respondent No. 1  in para 12 of  

the contempt petition.  Pursuant to the same, the appellant  

filed  counter  affidavit  setting  out  hierarchy  of  officials  

functioning  under  the  Commissioner  of  Police,  Greater  

Chennai  City,  the  circumstances  under  which  he  was  

informed about the incorrect affidavit filed by Respondent No.  

2 in the case and the directions issued by him to correct the  

mistake in the proceedings relating to the cancellation of bail  

of  Respondent No. 1.  We have already pointed out that the  

24

author  of  the  affidavit,  namely,  Respondent  No.  2  has  not  

stated that it was filed under the instructions of the appellant  

herein, in fact, this fact was accepted by the Division Bench.  

As a matter of fact,  Respondent No. 2 has specifically denied  

the allegation that the application for cancellation of bail was  

moved under the direction, supervision and knowledge of the  

appellant.  The two officers, namely, Assistant Commissioner  

of  Police  and  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Police  without  

specifying  the  name of  Commissioner  of  Police  have merely  

mentioned  that  they  had  consulted  their  “superior  officers”  

before filing the application for cancellation of bail.  

22) Apart from specific information in the form of an affidavit  

highlighting his stand before the Division Bench which dealt  

with the contempt petition,  the appellant  had also tendered  

unconditional apology which was not even referred to before  

passing  orders  sentencing  the  appellant  herein  to  

imprisonment.   When  a  city  like  Chennai  is  managed  by  

several police officers from the level of police constable to the  

Commissioner of  Police,  in the absence of  specific  reference  

about  consultation  with  the  Commissioner  of  Police  or  

25

direction to the two officers, namely, Assistant Commissioner  

of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police merely because  

both of them attended the office of the Public Prosecutor for  

preparation of an application for cancellation of bail based on  

the affidavit of the Inspector of Police, it cannot be presumed  

and concluded that the appellant was responsible for giving  

incorrect  information  by  Respondent  No.  2  before  the  High  

Court.   

23)   We  have  already  pointed  out  that  while  dealing  with  

criminal  contempt in terms of Section 2(c)  of  the Act,  strict  

procedures are to be adhered. In a series of  decisions,  this  

Court  has  held  that  jurisdiction  to  initiate  proceedings  for  

contempt as also the jurisdiction to punish for contempt are  

discretionary with the court.  Contempt generally and criminal  

contempt  certainly  is  a  matter  between  the  court  and  the  

alleged contemnor.  No one can compel or demand as of right  

initiation of proceedings for contempt.  The person filing an  

application  or  petition  before  the  court  does  not  become  a  

complainant or petitioner in the proceedings.  He is just an  

informer  or  relator.   His  duty  ends  with  the  facts  being  

26

brought to the notice of the court.  It is thereafter for the court  

to act on such information or not. [Vide Om Prakash Jaiswal  

vs. D.K. Mittal, (2000) 3 SCC 171]  Further Section 15 of the  

Act as well as the Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules  

insist  that,  particularly,  for  initiation  of  criminal  contempt,  

consent of the Advocate General is required.  Any deviation  

from the prescribed Rules should not be accepted or condoned  

lightly  and  must  be  deemed to  be  fatal  to  the  proceedings  

taken to initiate action for contempt.  In the present case, the  

above provisions have not been strictly adhered to and even  

the notice issued by the then Division Bench merely sought for  

explanation from the appellant about the allegations made by  

Respondent No. 1.   

24) We have already noted that Rajendra Kumar, Inspector of  

Police, (L&O), G-1, Vepery Police Station, Chennai-7 who made  

an incorrect/false statement for cancellation of bail has been  

rightly punished by the Division Bench of the High Court and  

this Court affirmed the same by dismissing his special leave  

petition.   

27

25) In view of the above discussion and conclusion, the order  

of the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 2(c)  

of the Act and sentencing him under Section 12 to undergo  

simple imprisonment for seven days is set aside.  The appeal is  

allowed.                      

 ...…………….…………………………J.            (P. SATHASIVAM)                                   

 .…....…………………………………J.    (H.L. GOKHALE)  

NEW DELHI; APRIL 15, 2011.   

28