Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Scandalising the Court Without Evidence is Contempt: Calcutta High Court Issues Warning in Criminal Case

14 October 2024 4:08 PM

By: sayum


Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, dismissed a criminal revision petition in the case of Asim Kumar Ghorai vs. The State of West Bengal & Others (C.R.R. 1375 of 2017). The case revolved around the petitioner’s challenge to the acquittal of the accused by the Trial Court, which was upheld by the Sessions Judge. The Court not only rejected the petitioner’s revision plea but also issued a notice to him to show cause for contempt of court for making baseless allegations against the Trial Magistrate.

The petitioner, Asim Kumar Ghorai, alleged that the accused persons trespassed into his home in September 2013, assaulted him, and stole valuable items. Following the investigation, charges were framed under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including trespass, theft, and assault. The Trial Court, however, acquitted the accused on January 25, 2016, citing insufficient evidence as the complainant and his brother, key witnesses, expressed a willingness to settle and made no allegations during their testimonies.

The petitioner appealed against this acquittal, but the Sessions Court dismissed the appeal in February 2017, ruling it non-maintainable on the grounds that the petitioner was not a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The main legal contention was whether the petitioner, as a de-facto complainant, could appeal under the definition of "victim" as per Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. The petitioner also alleged that the Trial Magistrate failed to follow proper procedures, including recording testimonies, cross-examinations, and examining the accused under Section 313 CrPC.

The Court observed that both key witnesses, including the complainant, had not supported the allegations during the trial. They even testified that the case arose from a "misunderstanding." Given the lack of incriminating evidence, the Trial Court had no grounds to convict the accused. Therefore, the non-examination of the accused under Section 313 was justified.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta examined the petitioner's serious allegations against the Trial Magistrate, which included claims that witnesses' signatures were obtained on blank papers and that proper examination did not take place. Upon reviewing the trial records, the High Court found no evidence supporting these claims. The Court held that such reckless allegations without evidence aimed to undermine the judiciary’s authority.

Citing past judgments on contempt, the Court reiterated that such baseless allegations could not be tolerated. As a result, the petitioner was issued a notice to show cause under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for making scandalous remarks against the Trial Magistrate.

The High Court upheld the findings of both the Trial Court and the Sessions Court, ruling that the acquittal was justified given the lack of evidence. It also clarified that under Section 372 of the CrPC, a victim may appeal against an acquittal, but in this case, the petitioner did not qualify as a "victim."

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioner’s criminal revision petition and warned him for making unfounded allegations against a judicial officer. The case serves as a reminder of the legal consequences of scandalising the court without substantive proof.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2024

Asim Kumar Ghorai vs. The State of West Bengal & Others

Latest Legal News