HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Vs. CHANDRASHEKAR N. SIRUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Complaint is filed on behalf of the High Court of Karnataka, in the following circumstances:

(2.) THE accused having entered appearance, had filed statement of objections and also an affidavit in the nature of an apology. This court, however, held that the apology could be considered only if the accused was purged of his alleged contumacious act.

(3.) The suo -motu proceeding initiated under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts, Act, 1971 on the basis of the letter of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum, is extracted in extenso in the petition. The averments as extracted in the letter of the Senior Civil Judge, makes reference to several pages of the I.A. dated 12.03.2013 under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in Ex. Petition No. 157/2009 apparently is of concern since the contemnor was an Ex -Principal of a Law College, a practicing advocate for 40 years at Belgaum Bar and a District Public Prosecutor for 5 years in Belgaum. Without having to extract the nature of insinuations directed against the Division Bench of this Court for having allowed R.F.A. No. 302/2001 and sequentially allowing O.S. No. 280/1984 and drawing a decree, some of the insinuations, prima facie, are also directed against the decree -holder. The contemnor has filed statement of objections inter alia denying the allegations and has also filed an objection on the point of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, while advancing a plea that the contempt petition is barred by limitation. The contemnor has filed an affidavit dated 26th March 2014 stating that on 18.08.2012 an unconditional apology was tendered before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum and further tenders an unqualified and unconditional apology before this Court, which may be accepted and "the proceedings in the event of its maintainability, be dropped in the interest of justice and equity".