Balwant Singh vs Nafe Singh

Swatanter Kumar, J. (Oral)

This is a case where the respondentcontemner at the first stage of hearing admitted violation of the order of the Court and has prayed for a lenient view and acceptance of unconditional apology tendered on his behalf. The respondent who is present in Court has submitted that he is an illiterate person and was not made to understand by his learned counsel that creating of mortgage in favour of the bank would also tantamount to violation of the order of injunction passed in RSA 934, 984 of 1994 dated 4.5.1994. The contemner submits that be by mistake and in bona fide error and belief mortgaged the property only for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/ to the bank, while the value of the land is Rs. 15 lacs. The respondentcontemner further submits that he had no intention to violate the order of the Court, but mortgaged the property under bona fide mistaken belief of fact and law both. He has shown repentance over the act done by him and has given assurance to the Court that in future he would not repeat any such act. He has further submitted that he would get the mortgaged property redeemed from the bank on or before 30.11.1996 without fail and would inform the Court of such action.

Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the value of the land in any case is more than Rs. 10 lacs and he had not claimed absolute ownership over the land but at best he will be cosharer in the property. The facts as aforesaid certainly constitute contempt because of the order of injunction was in not way partial or permitted the respondent to mortgage any part of the property in question.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and the settled law laid down that if a person at the very initial stage offers sincere and bona fide apology for any act done and complies with the order of the Court, the Court will be well within its jurisdiction to consider the acceptance of an apology tendered, instead of punishing the respondent contemner even if the Court holds the person guilty for contempt of Court.

The jurisdiction of the Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is regulated by well recognised and sound principles of law. The Court has a vide discretion to exercise, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case, to hold, whether the contemerrespondent should be punished for committing contempt of Court or the apology tendered on his behalf should be accepted. But where the Court intends to accept the apology tendered by the contemner, it has to be satisfied that such an apology is bona fide and is sincere repentance of his deed or omission. The Supreme Court in this regard made certain observations in the case of S. Mulgaokar, 1978(3) SCC 339 as under:

"The contempt power, though jurisdictionally large, is discretionary in its unsheathed exercise. Every commission of contempt need not erupt in indignant committal or demand punishment, because Judges are judicious, their valour nonviolent and their wisdom goes into action when played upon by the volley of values, the least of which is personal protection."

In another case a Full Bench of Delhi High Court in case of Kuldeep Rastogi v. Vishawanath AIR 1979 Delhi 202 expressed the view that an apology must come at the earlier opportunity and it should be in writing. The apology tendered should show that the contemners were really penitent. Further that apology so tendered was sincerely intended to be a sufficient atonement.

It is true that a sincere apology does not entitle a contemner as a matter of right to the remission of sentence. However, this is a sincere meaningful apology tendered at the initial stage with the assurance not to repeat such offence, certainly is a very relevant factor in the proceedings under this Act which need to be considered and which ought weigh with the Court while passing orders of punishment under this Act. I have no doubt in my mind that the contemner in the present case has given or tendered a sincere apology and has satisfied the Court on his undertaking to never repeat such an act again specially when on the earlier occasion it was a bona fide error on ill advice received by him. The intention which is stated to be seed of offering such an apology is fully satisfied in this case. It may be appropriate to make a reference to a Full Court judgment in the case of Court of its own motion v. Mr. B.D. Kaushik and others, 1991(4) Delhi Lawyer 316, as well as to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Baradakanta Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushan Misra CJ. of the Orissa High Court, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2255.

For the reasons aforestated, in spite of the fact that I hold the contemner respondent guilty for violating the order of the Court, I accept the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by the respondent who is present in Court and do not punish him for such violation. Consequently the rule is discharged. The petition is disposed of subject to payment of Rs. 1000/ as costs.