Justice Subramonium Prasad, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Delhi High Court
To Be Dealt With Heavy Hands: Delhi High Court Punishes 12 Men For Criminal Contempt Who Allegedly Attacked Advocate Commissioners In Kolkata
|The Delhi High Court said that the Court Commissioners were brutally beaten up by the Contemnors, striking terror in their minds and forcing them to flee from the place.
The Delhi High Court has held 12 men guilty of criminal contempt who allegedly attacked 11 Advocate Commissioners who were appointed by the Court to perform a task in Kolkata in the year 2015.
The Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue involving attack on the said Advocate Commissioners by an unruly mob gathered there to prevent them from performing the mandate of the Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “The facts reveal that the idea was to dissuade Local Commissioners from performing the work assigned to them by the Court. Interfering with the work assigned to the Advocate Commissioners amounts to interference in the administration of justice. If such of those persons who have interfered with the administration of justice are not dealt with heavy hands, the majesty of law will come down in the eyes of ordinary citizens which will have a deleterious effect on the fabric of the society. It is, therefore, imperative; rather, duty of the Court, to ensure that people who interfere in the administration of justice are dealt with severely so that people respect and adhere to law for the rule of law to prevail.”
The Bench said that the Court Commissioners were brutally beaten up by the Contemnors, striking terror in their minds and forcing them to flee from the place.
Advocate Varun Goswami (Amicus Curiae) appeared for the Contemnors while Senior Advocate Soumya Chakraborty appeared for the Kolkata Police.
Brief Facts
A Suit was filed by the Plaintiff- Samsung Electronics Company Limited, stating that its representatives came to know that several vendors in Khidderpore area of Kolkata were selling counterfeit Samsung products including hand held phones, mobile phones, tablets and accessories bearing their trademark Samsung. 15 vendors were identified and impleaded as Defendants and the Court restrained them from selling, distributing, importing, exporting, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any counterfeit goods including mobile phones or accessories using the mark Samsung or the oval slanted logo of Samsung or any other mark similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark. The Court also appointed 11 Advocate Commissioners to visit the specific places prepare inventory of the counterfeit products being sold under the trademark ‘SAMSUNG’ and the oval slanted logo or any other mark deceptively similar, to the Plaintiff’s trademark. They were directed to seize all such articles and produce them before the Court.
Advocate Shravan Sahary who was one of the 11 Advocate Commissioners, informed the Court that he was severely injured around his right eye, left cheek and two of his front teeth were broken in the incident which took place during the execution of the commission as directed by the Court. He also made a mentioning about the fact that the other Advocate Commissioners accompanying him were also been beaten up and they had to flee. The Single Judge was of the opinion that the attack on the 11 Advocate Commissioners, prima facie, appeared to be pre-meditated and constituted as a brazen interference in the administration of justice. Accordingly, notices were issued to the 16 Defendants in the Suit. Notices were also issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Enforcement), calling for an explanation with respect to the circumstances under which the incident took place. The Contemnors were also directed to file individual affidavits and the matter was placed before the Division Bench for further proceedings in the criminal contempt.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The Advocate Commissioners who went to the shops have been manhandled and beaten up. It is stated that a mob of around 200 people got together in the act. Out of the 200 people, how many people knew about the orders of the Court has yet not been established. Mere bystanders who have been misguided about the incident who without knowing that they are in fact interfering in the administration of justice cannot be brought within the four corners of the Act, as they do not fall within the definition of criminal contempt. Chargesheets have been filed against them for other IPC offences and this Court is not making any observations regarding the proceedings in the said criminal trial.”
The Court said that there is nothing on record to show that the Respondents involving cycle repair labourer, bus conductor, daily wage labourer, waiter, garment trader, and independent businessman could have in any way have had any knowledge of the Orders of the Court or that they intended to interfere with the administration of justice.
“These Respondents are, therefore, absolved from the contempt proceedings and their notices stand discharged. … This Court is not making any comment as to whether they were participants of the mob who beat up the Advocate Commissioners. Since there is no material against them of their having any knowledge of the Court orders, the purpose for which the Advocate Commissioners were coming to the market and that they wanted to interfere with the administration of justice, this Court is not inclined to proceed further against them”, it added.
The Court remarked that it is only concerned with such of those persons against whom there is material to show that they have taken steps to prevent the Advocate Commissioners from carrying out the commission.
“The plea of alibi raised by Respondent No.1, Respondent No 4 and Respondent No 13 cannot be accepted. It cannot be said that since Respondent No.1 was not present in the country and Respondent 4 and 13 were not in Kolkata, they were unaware of what has happened. The affidavits placed on record clearly demonstrate that Respondent No.1 and Respondent 4 and 13 were in the knowledge of the orders of this Court and they only wanted the Advocate Commissioners appointed by this Court to fail in the task entrusted to them by the Court. Rather, a mob was incited by the shopkeepers so that they could teach the Advocate Commissioners a lesson and scare them away without carrying the task entrusted to them by this Court”, it further observed.
The Court held that the Respondents (12 in number) interfered in the administration of justice and are, therefore, liable to be punished for criminal contempt.
“Though all these Respondents have tendered their unconditional apologies but looking at the fact that Advocate Commissioners of this Court have been manhandled and they have suffered serious injuries and also the fact that Police Officers who were accompanying the Advocate Commissioners have also suffered serious injuries, this Court is inclined to impose a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of these Contemnors and sentence them to undergo simple imprisonment for one day”, it also ordered.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the criminal cases which have been initiated would be decided on the weight of the evidence adduced in those cases.
Accordingly, the High Court imposed a fine and sentenced the contemnors.
Cause Title- Court on its own motion v. M/s Obsession Naaz & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7206-DB)
Appearance:
Advocate Varun Goswami (Amicus Curiae), Senior Advocate Soumya Chakraborty, Advocates Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Pankaj Balwan, Saarthak Bansal, Bahar U. Barqi, Sagar Saxena, Abhishek Singh, Karan Chaudhary, Krisnandu Haldar, Md. Waqar, Sushila Narang, Amit Ranjan, and Nandini Sen.