Summary
Shivinder Mohan Singh was found guilty of contempt for wilfully breaching orders made in the Daiichi Sankyo litigation and was later sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He sought a clarification that the sentence had begun on 03.02.2020, when he was produced before the Court from Tihar Jail. The Supreme Court refused. Set-off under Section 428 CrPC requires detention in the same case. He was in custody in another case and was produced only so that he could purge the contempt before sentence. Niranjan Singh's meaning of custody was given in the context of bail under Section 439 and does not govern set-off.
Issues
- Whether a contemnor produced before the Supreme Court from custody in another case, to be given a chance to purge contempt before sentence, was in custody in the contempt case so that his sentence should be treated as commencing from that date or set off under Section 428 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 428, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Set-off requires a conviction, a sentence of imprisonment for a term not in default of fine, and detention during investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case; custody in another case does not qualify. (¶¶ 6, 9, 12, 13)
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Niranjan Singh's statement that a person is in custody on surrendering to the court was made to decide jurisdiction to grant bail under this section and is not to be applied to Section 428. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Held
- Section 428 can be invoked only where there is a conviction followed by a sentence of imprisonment for a term (not in default of fine) and the convict underwent detention during investigation, inquiry or trial in the same case; only then is set-off available. (¶¶ 9, 12)
- The applicant was in custody in another case on 15.11.2019, 03.02.2020 and 16.03.2020; his production from that custody after conviction, to afford him a chance to purge the contempt before sentencing, did not make it custody in the contempt case, and the argument that he would otherwise have been bailed cannot convert custody in another case into custody in the contempt case. (¶¶ 9, 13, 14)
- A judgment is not read as Euclid's theorem shorn of its context: Niranjan Singh considered custody for the purpose of jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 439, not set-off under Section 428. (¶ 11)
Result
Miscellaneous Application No. 1902 of 2022 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 2120 of 2018 dismissed; no clarification that the six months' imprisonment ordered on 22.09.2022 commenced on 03.02.2020.