Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a municipal engineer’s contempt conviction for allegedly filing a false affidavit about demolition of unauthorised structures. No formal, precise charge had been framed or furnished, and the High Court failed to examine contemporaneous official records supporting the affidavit. An inspection months later could not establish deliberate falsehood beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when reconstruction was possible.
Issues
- Whether a contempt conviction could stand without framing and furnishing specific charges.
- Whether a later site inspection established that the engineer’s earlier demolition affidavit was deliberately false.
Held
- Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal. Charges must be framed precisely under the applicable rules and proved beyond reasonable doubt; the alleged contemnor enjoys criminal-jurisprudence safeguards, including benefit of doubt. Punishment cannot rest on probabilities, surmise or conjecture. (¶ 11)
- The High Court failed to test the contemporaneous official reports, photographs and other records supporting the affidavit. The advocates’ inspection several months after the demolition did not establish the earlier position, and the possibility of reconstruction had not been considered. (¶¶ 9, 12–16)
- The departmental enquiry had examined the records and exonerated the engineer. On the material, his involvement in reconstruction was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and his supported affidavit could not be treated as an obstruction of justice. (¶¶ 10, 12–13, 17)
- Failure to frame formal charges and furnish them to the appellant was itself sufficient to invalidate the proceedings. The conviction and review orders were set aside and both show-cause notices dropped. (¶¶ 12, 17–18)
Result
Appeal allowed; contempt conviction and impugned orders quashed, and both show-cause notices against the appellant dropped.