Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana 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

Similar News