MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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