RAJNEESH SAXENA Vs. SURESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The charges of having committed contempt has been accepted by Suresh Chandra, the contemnor, other Honarary Secretary, Committee of Management, S. M. College, Chandausi, District Moradabad. In reply to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, it was submitted on behalf of the contemner, by Mr. V. S. Saxena, Advocate, that to argue the matter would only make the position worse, and that it would be better prudence that the contemnor, Suresh Chandra, leaves himself to the mercy of the Court.

(2.) The contempt petition was heard at length, and orders were reserved after parties had an opportunity to apprise themselves with the record of the court, afresh, and the law as applicable, in reference to the contempt. This judgment will be incomplete without the facts as already noticed by this Court in it's order dated 15/11/1990 as a consequence of which the charges had been framed. Rather than notice the facts all over again, it would be better to refer to the order of 15/11/1990, which runs as under :

(3.) The facts as they are, what the court has to consider is how justice must treat the contemnor, in law, On behalf of the contemnor the only argument which has been made is that he leaves the entire matter at the mercy of the court. The argument, in effect, accepts the charges and the facts, of having shown contempt to the orders of the Court. The contemnor, thus, pleads guilty and seeks mercy. In ordinary parlance this is known as contrition. In the jurisprudence which governs the law of contempt there are parameters within which an act of contrition is to be judged.