The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a recent order sentenced a person to six months’ imprisonment with Rs. 2000/- as fine in a contempt proceeding. This order was passed out in a suo moto action taken by the Court. The person accused was found guilty under Article 12(1) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
The person, namely Ravi Shyamnani, was accused of filing false cases against the Judges. The contemnor used to malign and pressurize the judge by filing false complaints and get adjournment dates in his cases. The High Court noticed that the contemnor was in a habit of doing so and used to do such an act to get orders suitable for him. The Court said that such an act was derogatory and stopped the functioning of impartial and proper justice.
The Court observed that the Judicial System a prime organ of the country and such an act would bring down the respect of the Judicial System and people will start losing faith in it and this could not be allowed to happen.
The accused was in a habit of making false and untrue complains against the judges to get results in his favor. The High Court noticed that when the case was referred to the High Court, the contemnor did not stop and kept on repeating the same-by filing complaints against the judges of the High Court. This shows that he had not changed his ways and was undermining and lowering the authority of the Court.
The contemnor had then filed an apology accepting his guilt but the court rejected it saying that it needed no false apology. The Court said that no one could be allowed to derogate the respect of the Court and that such actions would not be tolerated. The Court also mentioned that it would not give in to the rule of “Slap, Say Sorry and Forget”. The court said that in such cases of contempt, it could give relief to the contemnor only if he gave or tendered an apology which was not to escape the consequences but an apology which came from the heart and was not a false apology.
The Court observed that the apology of the contemnor was not true because even while apologizing, he was still putting the blame on the Judicial Magistrate, Sagar stating that the contempt proceedings were false and were planned against the accused.The Court rejected the apology of the contemnor stating that this apology was tendered only to escape conviction because though the apology was tendered in between the hearing and not after the judgment, it was tendered only when the contemnor realized that the Court was going to take action against him and that he could not escape conviction. Hence, it was not an apology felt but an apology stated. The Court further said that such actions would not be allowed and any person could not escape contempt proceedings just by tendering an unconditional apology.