Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971) , S.12— Contempt jurisdiction - Discharge of contempt notice - Correctness of - Single judge of High Court had found respondent to be guilty of contempt of court - Time was granted to respondent either to purge the contempt or failing which to file an affidavit as to why he should not be punished - When matter was listed before another Single Judge after change of roster, it was held that there was no wilful disobedience and contempt notice was discharged - Other Single Judge could have only considered whether respondent had purged the contempt and if not purged the contempt, as to whether he should be punished - When one Judge of the same Court had held respondent to be guilty of contempt, another Judge could not have come to a finding that respondent was not guilty of contempt - Same amounted to sitting in appeal over order passed by coordinate Bench - Order of discharge of contempt notice being contrary to principles of judicial propriety, was set aside - Matter remanded to High Court for proceeding from stage of earlier order where respondent was held guilty of contempt

AIROnline 2024 DEL 1744-Reversed(Paras12131415161920)

(Para 12 13 14 15 16 19 20)

Constitution of India , Art.309— Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (1965) , R.14— Punishment of demotion in rank - Setting aside of - Issuance of fresh disagreement notice - Legality - Appellant,Assistant Commissioner of Police was punished for dereliction of duty during Anti-Sikh Riots in 1984 that erupted on assassination of the then Prime Minister - High Court set aside order of punishment but granted liberty to issue fresh disagreement note - Disciplinary proceedings were initiated after 8 years of incident by which time appellant had already earned his promotion - Inquiry officer had found that charges were not duly proved - Disagreement note was cryptic and ignored vital aspects that were considered by Inquiry Officer in his report - In his evidence, appellant's immediate senior had applauded work of appellant under circumstances prevailing at the relevant point of time - Incident had occurred about 38 years ago and appellant had retired from service and was now aged about 80 years - It would be injustice to punish police officers who though might not have delivered desired result, had done their best, commensurate to resources available to them at relevant time - Order of High Court giving liberty to disciplinary authority to issue fresh disagreement note, and proceed accordingly, was set aside

AIROnline 2022 Del 1324-Reversed(Paras17232526283031323334)

(Para 17 23 25 26 28 30 31 32 33 34)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.389— Suspension of sentence - Legality - Accused was convicted for offence of sexual assault on minor - High Court suspended sentence citing doubt over age of victim and granted him bail pending appeal - Whether or not finding regarding age of victim was correct or manner in which same was sought to be proved before Trial Court, was in accordance with law or not, is question that is open for consideration in jurisdiction under S.374 CrPC, and not under S.389 CrPC - Casting doubt upon finding returned by Trial Court, when same isn't within immediate purview, cannot be justified - Accused was convicted by trial court - Considering nature of offence and age of convict, High Court ought not to have suspended sentence - Order suspension of sentence was set aside.

AIROnline 2024 GUJ 2029-ReversedAIR 2024 SC 4594-Relied on2024 Cri LJ 930 (SC)-Relied on(Paras89)

(Para 8 9)

Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988) , S.19— Sanction for prosecution - Necessity of - Complaint was filed alleging corruption by CM of State and others - Since the issue involved in the case, 'Whether the bar of Section 19 of the PC Act would be applicable on exercise of power under Section 156 (3) of CrPC.' had already been referred to a larger bench, it was deemed appropriate to tag instant petitions with referred matter Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora and Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 557 : AIROnline 2018 SC 1002 - Registry was directed to place matters before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders

(Para 20)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.482— Quashing of proceedings - Offence of cheating and voluntarily causing hurt - Allegations that on account of payment for purchase of plot accused persons cheated and assaulted complainant - Complaint did not revel specific role played by accused persons in alleged offence of cheating and assault - Alleged incident of assault involving these accused persons was not believable due to vagueness of complaint petition regarding their actions - Prima facie evidence to attract offence against two accused persons only - Allegations made in complaint are not sufficient even prima facie to attract alleged offence against rest of accused persons - Except two accused persons, proceedings was liable to be quashed against other accused persons.

(Para 4)