1970 JTR(SC) 6
1971 3 SCC 896
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[BEFORE M. HIDAYATULLAH, CJI. AND J.G. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
MARTHI VENKATA SUBBARAO AND OTHERS
Versus
KRUTHIVENTI KUTUMBA RAO AND ANOTHER
Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1967, decided on January 12, 1970
In contempt proceedings, an unconditional apology submitted during an appeal may lead to a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, especially if the opposing party consents, although it may not necessarily result in complete exoneration.
(A) Contempt of Court - Obstruction of court process - Unconditional apology tendered during appeal - Acceptance of apology - Reduction of sentence - Where an unconditional apology is submitted during the hearing of an appeal and the opposing party agrees to its acceptance, the court may reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, even if complete exoneration is not warranted.
Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted for contempt of a trial court for obstructing its process and were sentenced to two months simple imprisonment. During the appeal, the appellants submitted an unconditional apology, which had not been tendered in the lower appellate court.
Findings of Court:
While there was no basis for complete exoneration from the contempt, the unconditional apology was accepted given the consent of the opposing party.
Issues: Whether the submission of an unconditional apology during the appellate proceedings justifies the acquittal of the contemnors or a reduction in their sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: An unconditional apology, when accepted by the court and agreed upon by the opposing party, can lead to a reduction of the sentence to the period already served, although it may not necessarily result in full exoneration if the contempt is established.
Result: Sentence reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone; contemnors ordered to pay costs.
Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted for contempt of a trial court for obstructing its process and were sentenced to two months simple imprisonment. During the appeal, the appellants submitted an unconditional apology, which had not been tendered in the lower appellate court.
Findings of Court:
While there was no basis for complete exoneration from the contempt, the unconditional apology was accepted given the consent of the opposing party.
Issues: Whether the submission of an unconditional apology during the appellate proceedings justifies the acquittal of the contemnors or a reduction in their sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: An unconditional apology, when accepted by the court and agreed upon by the opposing party, can lead to a reduction of the sentence to the period already served, although it may not necessarily result in full exoneration if the contempt is established.
Result: Sentence reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone; contemnors ordered to pay costs.
Judgment
Hidayatullah, C.J.I. -The appellants were, convicted for contempt of the Court of District Munsif of Vijayavada and sentenced to two months simple imprisonment, with the direction that they may be detained in District Prison, Secunderabad. During the course of the hearing of this appeal, the appellants have submitted an unconditional apology for having obstructed that process of the court, and pray that this apology be accepted. We note that no such apology was tendered in the High Court and the question arises whether by accepting the apology we should acquit them or not. In our judgment, there is no case made out for complete exoneration from their contempt. However, in view of the fact that the other side who also agrees that the apology be accepted we accept the apology and reduce the sentence of the appellants to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them which period we are told is in the neighbourhood of ten days. The contemnors will also pay costs of the proceedings in this Court and in the High Court.
For Citation : (1971) 3 SCC (1)