SUO MOTU Vs. ELAMPULASSERY ISMAYIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt of court proceedings have been initiated by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Perinthalmanna on a complaint filed on 17.06.2005 by an advocate commissioner appointed in I.A. 486 of 2005 in O.S. No 25 of 2005 alleging that on 17.05.2005 the contemner had entered his office and threatened him with dire consequences if an adverse report is given against the defendant in the suit, the father-in-law of the contemner. Further it was alleged that the contemner had caught hold of the collar of the shirt of the Advocate Commissioner and had caused extensive damage to the office of Advocate Commissioner. It was alleged that the contemner had torn off the commission warrant and the draft report and other files of the Commissioner. The complaint was forwarded to the Sub Inspector of Police, Perintalmanna under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he was directed to register a crime which was investigated and a final report for offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 452, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C was filed. Later C.C. No 694 of 2005 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 452, 427 and 506 (ii) I.P.C was registered.

(2.) Learned Munsiff-Magistrate took the view that the conduct of the contemner was something that would prejudice or tend to prejudice or interfere with the due course of the judicial proceedings. In an enquiry conducted by him the learned Munsiff-Magistrate had examined four witnesses and a prima facie case was found against the alleged contemner and therefore made a reference to this Court under Section 15 of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Rules for proceeding against the contemner in accordance with law. This Court issued notice to the contemner who had entered appearance and filed a reply statement denying the allegations and had also referred to the complaint filed by him stating that the Advocate Commissioner had on 17.06.2005 demanded illegal gratification.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the contemner Sri Babu Karukapadath submitted that the reference made by the learned Munsiff-Magistrate is not legally sustainable since proceedings were initiated on a reference under Section 15 (2) of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Rules without notice to the contemner and alternatively contended that if fresh proceedings are to be initiated it will be hit by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. When the matter came up for hearing, this Court appointed advocate Sri P.N. Ravindran as Amicus Curiae to assist the court. We heard learned Counsel for the alleged contemner and also Shri P.N. Ravindran.