JOMON PUTHENPURACKAL Vs. JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE III
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE III
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) PETITIONER is the complainant in C. M. P. 3157/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Thiruvananthapuram. He filed the above complaint in Court alleging that the accused in that complaint committed the offences under Ss. 465 and 468 read with S. 120b of the indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate commenced proceedings under S. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
(2.) THE learned Magistrate issued summons to the second respondent in this petition, who is the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of kerala, for production of documents. It is stated that the summons was not accepted by the Speaker and it was returned. Regarding the issuance of summons to the second respondent for production of documents he made statements to the press which, according to the petitioner, will amount to contempt of Court. THE statement alleged to have been made by the second respondent reported in malayala Manorama daily dated 16th September, 2003 is extracted in the petition. THE report in the newspaper was that no Magistrate who knows things will not make such a demand and that anybody, who had read the Constitution of india, will not make such a demand to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
Petitioner filed an application under S. 15 (2) of the contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) seeking action against the second respondent and for making a reference to this Court for initiating action against him in contempt. Learned Magistrate posted the petition for preliminary hearing and after hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner, made an order on 1st November, 2003 disposing of the petition taking decision not to proceed with the matter. Magistrate felt that there is no need for reference being made to this Court for contempt proceedings. In this Writ Petition one of the prayers is to quash the order made by the learned magistrate refusing to make a reference to this Court. There is another prayer to give direction to the first respondent, who is the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Thiruvananthapuram, to make a reference to this Court for initiation of contempt proceedings.
According to the petitioner, if it is found that ext. P2 order cannot be quashed and direction need not be given to the magistrate for making reference to this Court for contempt of Court, this Court can initiate proceedings against the second respondent for contempt since the facts constituting contempt had come to the knowledge of this Court as a result of filing of this Writ Petition. The alternative prayer in this petition is to issue notice to the second respondent to show cause why action in contempt shall not be taken against him under the Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner says in the petition that this Court in exercise of the powers under the contempt of Courts Act and Art. 215 of the Constitution of India has to initiate proceedings against the second respondent for contempt of court.
(3.) IN this Writ Petition the petitioner says that the intention of the second respondent was to bring into ridicule and contempt the image of the judiciary as a whole, which is clear from other references made against the High Court and the Chief Justice. The petitioner would say that the statement made by the second respondent was motivated with the object of ridiculing the judges and judiciary in the eye of the public and thereby making people lose faith in the entire system.
The submission made for and on behalf of the petitioner is that since the learned Magistrate found that there was contempt of court committed by the second respondent the only course open to him was to make a reference to this Court under S. 15 (2) of the Act. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, what action has to be taken in respect of the contempt can be decided only by this Court and the learned magistrate cannot drop the proceedings after finding that the statements made by the second respondent amounted to contempt of court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.