1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

    CIVIL APPEAL NO.  3001/2008

SATWANT SINGH                                 Appellant                                 VERSUS

MALKEET SINGH                                Respondent

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. This is a case where the appellant was punished for civil contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have  taken  the  view  that  once  the  respondent  had  been granted interim bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. as per order dated 17.02.2006, his arrest on 26.05.2007 on a charge which has been later on added under Section 307, IPC constitutes contempt.   3. We find that this addition of charge is based on a subsequent  investigation  on  the  direction  issued  by  the Senior  Superintendent  of  Police  after  disposal  of  the Section 438 petition by the High Court and the arrest also was carried out on his instruction.  It is significant to note that when the FIR was originally registered Section 307

2

had been included. It was deleted based on the instruction of  a  superior  officer.   After  such  deletion  only,  the respondent approached the High Court.  4. We  find  that  the  appellant  had  tendered  an  apology explaining  his  conduct  before  this  Court  in  the  Civil Appeal.  We  also  find  that  the  appellant  had  tendered unconditional apology explaining that he only carried out the  instruction  of  the  Superintendent  and  he  bona  fide understood the order passed by the Court to mean that the respondent  is  entitled  to  protection  under  Section  438, Cr.P.C. only in respect of those offences reflected in the order dated 17.02.2017. Section 307, IPC having been added subsequently there was no impediment in proceeding with the investigation after arresting the respondent on that count. In our view, in the facts of the present case, it is a plausible explanation to show that there was no wilful or deliberate attempt to violate the Court order.  No doubt, it would have been certainly more appropriate to apprise the Court  on  this  development  and  seek  modification.  On  the facts of this case we are, however, convinced there was no intentional move to overstep the order of the Court. 5. It is in that context, his apology becomes relevant. The appellant has tendered an unconditional apology for bona fide exercise  of  his  powers  as  an  Investigating  Officer.

3

Apology  is  one  of  the  defences  in  the  case  of  a  civil contempt and the Court is bound to explain as to why the apology should not be accepted.   6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the apology tendered by the appellant has to be accepted.   7. In this view of the matter, the Appeal is allowed.  The conviction  and  sentence  imposed  on  the  appellant  is  set aside,  accepting  his  sincere,  genuine  and  unconditional apology in writing before this Court and the High Court. 8. The Appeal is allowed in the above terms.

…................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

.................J. [R. BANUMATHI]

JULY 20, 2017; NEW DELHI.