Miss Sophy Kelly & Anr. Vs. Chandrakant Ganpat & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 1987
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18./19-8-87 of the Bombay High Court in Contempt petition No. 24 of 1987)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18./19-8-87 of the Bombay High Court in Contempt petition No. 24 of 1987)
Petitioner: Miss Sophy Kelly & Anr.
Respondent: Chandrakant Ganpat & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 1987
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18./19-8-87 of the Bombay High Court in Contempt petition No. 24 of 1987)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18./19-8-87 of the Bombay High Court in Contempt petition No. 24 of 1987)
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 02, 1999
Appearances:
A.S.S. Pasrich Advocate for M/s. JBD & Co., for the appellants.
Mr. Pramod Swarup, Advocate (NP) for the Respondent
Mr. G.B. Sathe, Mr. D.M. Nargolkar, Advocates for the State.
Head Note:
CONTEMPT OF COURTS
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Section 2, 19(1) (b) – Wilful flouting of orders – Contemner fined Rs. 2000/- and to be detained in Civil prison for 15 days – Contemner 70 years old at that time and 83 years before Supreme Court. Held that it was not necessary at this time to send her to Civil prison. Appeal partly allowed.(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
Nanavati, J.
1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act as she has been found guilty of having committed Civil contempt. She has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and also to undergo detention in a civil prison for 15 days.
2. As it appears from the judgment of the High Court, the appellant had wilfully flouted the interim order dated 19-8-1986 passed by the Schools Tribunal, Bombay, and not paid the dues of its employees (non-teaching staff.).
3. What is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was about 70 years old when she was convicted by the High Court and now she is about 83 years old and, there-fore, this Court should deal with her sympathetically and remit the sentence of detention in civil prison.
4. We have also heard learned counsel for the State. Consider-ing the changed circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is now not necessary to send the appellant to civil prison for detention, as ordered. We therefore, allow this appeal partly and set aside that part of the order passed by the High Court whereby she has been directed to undergo detention in civil prison for 15 days.
1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act as she has been found guilty of having committed Civil contempt. She has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and also to undergo detention in a civil prison for 15 days.
2. As it appears from the judgment of the High Court, the appellant had wilfully flouted the interim order dated 19-8-1986 passed by the Schools Tribunal, Bombay, and not paid the dues of its employees (non-teaching staff.).
3. What is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was about 70 years old when she was convicted by the High Court and now she is about 83 years old and, there-fore, this Court should deal with her sympathetically and remit the sentence of detention in civil prison.
4. We have also heard learned counsel for the State. Consider-ing the changed circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is now not necessary to send the appellant to civil prison for detention, as ordered. We therefore, allow this appeal partly and set aside that part of the order passed by the High Court whereby she has been directed to undergo detention in civil prison for 15 days.
