STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MAHBOOB S ALLIBHOY
LAWS(SC)-1996-4-94
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on April 10,1996

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
VERSUS
MAHBOOB S.ALLIBHOY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal has been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra for setting aside an order dated 12th July, 1988 passed by the High Court of Bombay dropping the contempt proceeding which had been initiated against the respondents.
(2.) It appears that respondents had filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming refund of Rs. 2,60,144-70 paid as counter vailing/additional duty. The Customs Department filed an affidavit stating that a false claim had been made before the Court for obtaining refund because in fact the writ petitioners - respondents has not paid any duty at all and had claimed the refund on basis of forged documents. In connection with the said dispute, a notice was issued to the respondents as to why a complaint be not filed against them under Sections 191, 192, 209 and 210 of the Indian Penal Code. A notice was also issued to the respondents directing them to show cause why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against them. After taking into consideration the show cause filed on behalf of the respondents an order was passed directing that a complaint be filed against them. The learned Judges having passed the aforesaid order directed that no action be taken under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This part of the order is being challenged in this appeal. According to the appellant - State in the facts and circumstances of the present case the contempt proceeding should not have been dropped.
(3.) The preliminary question which has to be examined as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case an appeal is maintainable against an order droping the proceeding for contempt. It is well settled that an appeal is a creature of a statue. Unless a statute provides for an appeal and specifies the order against which an appeal can be filed, no appeal can be filed or entertained as a matter of right or course. Section 19 of the Act says: "Appeals - (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt - (a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court: (b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court: Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union Territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. (2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that - (a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended; (b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and (c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt. (3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by sub-section (2). (4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed - (a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days; (b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court; within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against". On a plain reading Section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. In other words, if the High Court passes an order in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish any person for contempt of court, then only an appeal shall be maintainable under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. As sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that an appeal shall lie as of right for any order, an impression is created that an appeal has been provided under the said sub-section against any order passed by the High Court while exercising the jurisdiction contempt proceedings. The words 'any order' has to be read with the expression 'decision' used in said sub-section which the High Court passes in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. 'Any order' is not independent of the expression 'decision. They have been put in an alternative form saying 'order' or 'decision. In either case, it must be in the nature of punishment for contempt. If the expression 'any order' is read independently of the 'decision' then an appeal shall lie under sub-section (1) of Section 19 even against any interlocutory order passed in a proceeding for contempt by the High Court which shall lead to a rediculous result.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.