S JOSEPH BASILE Vs. MANICKASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the contemnor in Contempt Application No. 183 of 1985 against the order of S. Natarajan, J. (as he then was) punishing the contemnor under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 250.00, in default to undergo S.l. for one week. In addition to the above punishment, the learned Judge directed issue of notice to the appellant herein to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for committing the offence of giving false evidence, punishable under section 193, I.P.C.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of the Contempt Application and the counter affidavit filed by the contemnor as well as the further affidavits filed by the parties have been set out elaborately in the order of the learned Judge and it is therefore, unnecessary for us to set out the full facts.

(3.) The 1st respondent herein moved the said Contempt Application (C;.A. No. 183 of 1985) alleging that the appellant herein (2nd respondent in C.A. 183 of 1985) has wilfully disobeyed the order of this court made in W.M.P. No. 517; of 19:5 in W.P. No. 3159 of 1985 S. Manickasamy v. The State Transport Authority, Pondicherry and 2 others dated 1/4/1985. According to the 1st respondent herein notwithstanding the order of this court in the said W, M.P. ordering the maintenance of status quo as on 31/3/1985, the appellant herein denied the 1st respondent the benefit of that order by his contumacious conduct. According to the 1st respondent herein, a carbon copy of the order in W.M.P. 5179 of 1985 was obtained on the evening of 1/4/1985 and the same was produced before the appellant on the morning of 2/4/1985 in the office by the 1st respondentTs clerk. However, according to the 1st respondent, the appellant, after acquainting himself with the contents of the order, returned the same directing the clerk of the 1st respondent to hand it over to the Superintendent. When the clerk approached the Superintendent, he declined to receive the same and, therefore, the clerk handed over the same in the Tapal Section. The case of the appellant herein was that he has not seen the contents of the order of this court in W.M.P. 5179 of 1985 dated 1.4.1985 till the same was received directly from this court, on 4.4.1985. Of course, the appellant admitted that on the evening of 2.4.1985, the counsel for the 1st respondent herein orally informed about the order passed by this court in the said W.M P. As a consequence of the appellant not obeying the order of this court in the said W.MP, according to the first respondent herein, he (1st respondent) could not ply his stage carriage for a period of one week as a result of which he was put to heavy loss. As pointed out earlier, the appellant herein filed a counter for which the 1st respondent herein filed a reply and for that reply the appellant filed an additional counter and for that counter another reply was filed by the 1st respondent herein before the learned Judge. After perusing all the affidavits and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel on both sides and also the records produced, the learned Judge held as follows The second respondent, therefore, deserves to be punished for contempt. All the expansions put forward by him, viz., that the petitioner would have applied for a temporary permit and that he was not entitled to ply the bus without the obtainment of a temporary permit are all subsequent stories invented by the second respondent. It is highly regretable that an officer like the second respondent who is bound to respect the orders of the High Court and implement them, should have acted in such a brazen manner and defied the order of the High Court. Not only has he disobeyed the order of the High Court, but he has gone to the extent of swearing to a false affidavit by saying that he knew nothing about the seizure of the petitioners bus on 2.4. 1985 by the Motor Vehicles Inspector and that he is not to be blamed in any manner fat it. Such wilful infraction has to be viewed seriously and dealt with appropriately. The conditional apology tendered by the second respondent stating that if he has transgressed his limits and disobeyed the orders of the court in any manner, he may be pardoned for his action, cannot be granted acceptance in view of his deliberate act of disobedience. The expression of regret contained in the apology is not reflective of - genuine repentance or penitence for his flouting the orders of court. I am, therefore, of the view that the second respondent should not only be punished for the contempt of the court he has committed, but he should also be called upon to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for the offence of giving false evidence punishable under section 193, I.P.C. I therefore find the second respondent guilty under section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and render a finding accoldingly. Consequently, I sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. I also direct notice to be issued to the second respondent to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for committing the offence of ,giving false evidence punishable under section 193, I.P.C. The second respondent is called upon to submit his explanation by 28th February, 1986.