Without Partition By Metes And Bounds, Co-Sharer Cannot Seek Recovery Of Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of Order VII Rule 7 CPC Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff Entitled To Declaration Of Title Over Undivided Half Share Despite Claiming Entire Property Under Gift Deed Supreme Court Reaffirms Legality Of Remainder Of Natural Life Sentences Without Remission, Dismisses Batch Of Writ Petitions 'State Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Wrong': Supreme Court Holds Promotees Entitled To Count Ad Hoc Service For Seniority If Within Quota 'Elevators Are Common Carriers, Entail Heightened Duty of Care': Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order Holding OTIS Principally Liable For Death Due To Malfunctioning Lift Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, Holds Reach Stacker Operating in Custom-Bonded ICD Area Is Not a "Motor Vehicle" Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer Subsequent Suit Generally Transferable To Court Where Earlier Suit On Same Subject Matter Is Pending: Allahabad High Court Successive Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Under BNSS If Fact Situation Changes Or Previous Findings Become Obsolete: Andhra Pradesh High Court Tenant's "Deemed Purchaser" Right Defeated By Retrospective Notification Under Section 88(1)(b) Of Tenancy Act: Bombay High Court Buyer Not Entitled To Refund Of Earnest Money Once Sale Deed Is Duly Executed Under The Agreement: Calcutta High Court Contradictory Pleas Vitiate Defence; Drawer Liable Even If Signed Blank Cheque Was Handed Over: Delhi High Court Working Mother's Relocation To Another City Not A Ground To Completely Deny Overnight Custody To Father: Karnataka High Court Civil Courts Barred From Granting Injunctions Against SARFAESI Actions Even If Partition Suit Is Maintainable: Kerala High Court S.147 NI Act Is A Special Law, Overrides S.320 CrPC; Offence Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Appeal: Madras High Court Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court

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