Court on its motion v. Jaswant Sarpal

intemperate and Scandalous. Therefore, Shri Jaswant Sarpal was called upon to explain as to why he should not be punished for making wild allegations. The office was directed to register a separate criminal contempt against Shri Jaswant Sarpal on the basis of affidavit dated 10.2.2010. The contemnor present in court was directed to file his reply within two weeks. The contemner filed reply by way of affidavit dated

20.2.2010 in pursuance of the show cause notice received. The contents of the said affidavit read as under:- “1. That the order dated 10.2.10 is void, illegal, unconstitutional and against the provision of law, hence, not maintainable.

2. That in the affidavit dated 10.2.10, the applicant had highlighted the order dated 25.07.2001 regarding security of the applicant, dated 27.09-04 providing legal aid to the applicant and dated 28.11.08 protection of the applicant had not been complied with in words and spirits.

3. That the Hon’ble D.B. comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Jaswant Singh, announced in the Crl. OCP No. 6 of 2010 [3] open court denial of security of the applicant, legal aid to the applicant and protection of the applicant.

4. That an order once passed attains finality unless interfered with, by the Hon’ble Superior Court in revision/appeal as per the provision contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C., which lays down “court not to alter judgment or any order once passed by it – save as otherwise provided by the law”.

5. That in the present case, the same Court has, against the provision as laid down – in Section 362 Cr.P.C. as per contents of para No. 3 above, altered its own order as mentioned in para No. 2 above- regarding the order made by the court which is without jurisdiction and contempt of their own court.

6. That the Hon’ble registry of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is requested to register a criminal case against the above said Hon’ble D.B. for willfully disregarding the mandatory provision as contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of harassing the applicant, in the interest of justice. Dated: 20 February, 2010 Submitter Sd/- Jaswant Sarpal C/C to:-

1. The Hon’ble Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India along with copy of order dated 10.2.10 with a prayer for immediate, suitable and necessary action.

2. The Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh along with copy of order dated 10.2.10 with a prayer for immediate, suitable and necessary action.

3. The Hon’ble President-Government of India.

4. The Hon’ble Speaker-Lok Sabha.

5. The Hon’ble Minister- Government of India- Law and Justice Division- New Delhi, along with a copy of order dated 10.2.10 with a prayer to requisition of the above said court file from the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab, Haryana at Chandigarh for commencing impeaching proceeding against the above said Hon’ble Justices of Punjab, Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.” Crl. OCP No. 6 of 2010 [4] The order dated 25.7.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl. Misc. No.18165-M of 2001, referred to by the contemner in the aforesaid affidavit, reads as under:- “Heard. No merit. Dismissed. The Chief Secretary, Punjab, will see that the functionaries under him with whom the record being summoned by the petitioner, is produced before the Court concerned. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, will see that the petitioner is adequately protected and there is no physical harm to him.” Still further, the order dated 27.9.2004, passed in Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004, reference of which has been made by the contemner in the aforesaid affidavit as well, reads as under:- “Court on its own motion. Present: Jaswant Sarpal, contemner in person. --- As requested by the contemner, he will be provided with Legal Aid. The office will see that certain copies of documents desired by him are made available to him, as per the law, at the earliest. Put up on November 1, 2004.” The contemner has referred to an order dated

28.11.2008. But no such order is on the file of Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004. In fact, the reference appears to be to the order dated 18.11.2008, which reads as under:- “Today when the case was called, the contemner was present but Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Assistant Solicitor General, UOI prayed that he may be excused from further representing the High Court as Amicus Curiae as he is no longer Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Crl. OCP No. 6 of 2010 [5] His request is accepted and he is permitted to withdraw from the case. Mr. SS Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in the Court today is requested to appear on behalf of the High Court to assist the Court. Office to supply relevant documents to Mr. Randhawa. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, on behalf of State of Punjab undertakes that the contemner shall be fully protected in the State of Punjab. Adjourned to 18.12.2008.” The subsequent order dated 18.12.2008 passed in Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004, reads as under:- “Contemner, who is present in Court, states that he has not received a copy of the charge sheet which was filed before this Court. We have gone through the records of the case and found that on 30.7.2007, the charges had been taken on record of this case and the contemner was asked whether he wants to argue on the charges. The contemner states that he wishes to argue on the proposed charges. Copy of the proposed charges is supplied to the contemner to enable him to prepare his case. If the contemner wants to obtain any other document for preparing his defence, he may file application in this regard and prepare for arguments in this case. Adjourned to 17.2.2009. Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate, who is present in Court, is hereby appointed amicus curiae to defend the contemner. Registry to supply copy of the petition to Mr. Panwar”. The stand of the respondent-contemner is that an order has been passed by the Bench, which contravenes the order dated Crl. OCP No. 6 of 2010 [6]

25.7.2001. There is no order passed by the Court in contempt proceedings which directly or indirectly contravenes the order dated

25.7.2001 passed in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, an order directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar to see that the contemner is adequately protected and there is no physical harm to him, does not mean that the contemner is at liberty to level all kinds of unfounded allegations against the Bench or that the contemner can seek protection from National Security Guards. As mentioned in the order of even date passed in Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004, the respondent is in the habit of levelling indiscriminate allegations against members of the Bench either with a view to browbeat the Bench or to avoid the hearing of the matter by the Bench. The contemner has not expressed any regret over the allegations levelled either in reply filed by of an affidavit or during the course of hearing, which constitutes the basis for the present contempt proceedings under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short `the Act’). We find that such conduct of the respondent-contemner interferes with the due administration of justice. In fact, we find that the attitude of the contemner is of utmost defiance with no respect for judicial dignity, propriety and/or the justice dispensation process. Resultantly, to uphold the dignity and majesty of law, we hold the respondent-contemner guilty for the offence under Section 14 read with Section 12 of the Act and convict him as such. The contemner has refused to submit anything on the question of sentence. Keeping in view the conduct of the contemner as indicated above, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- . In default of Crl. OCP No. 6 of 2010 [7] payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentence imposed in this case shall run after the contemner completes the sentences imposed upon him vide order of even date passed in Crl.OCP No. 8 of 2004. The sentence imposed upon the contemner shall remain suspended for a period of one month from today, enabling him to avail his right of appeal. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE [ JASWANT SINGH ] JUDGE 30-03-2010