Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:

s.2(c) - Giving false evidence by filing false affidavit - Criminal case registered against respondent-MLA - Sessions Judge granted him conditional bail for attending the Legislative Assembly to take oath as MLA - Respondent-

MLA filed contempt application alleging that on the direction, supervision and knowledge of the appellant (Commissioner of Police), respondent no.2 (Inspector) filed an application for cancellation of conditional bail granted to respondent no. 1 and obtained stay of the bail order on the basis of false statement/false affidavit thereby preventing him from attending the Assembly and taking oath as MLA - High Court held the appellant and respondent no.i guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment for seven days - On appeal, held: Mere suspicion cannot bring home the charge of making false statement - Contempt proceedings being quasi criminal in nature, burden and standard of proof is the same as required in criminal cases - There was no material that the affidavit containing wrong information filed by respondent no.2 was made at the instance of the appellant - Affidavit of the government counsel also showed that he drafted the affidavit purely on the instructions of respondent no. 2 and that the · appellant had no personal knowledge of it - Respondent no. 2 also specifically denied that the application for cancellation of bail was moved under the direction, supervision and knowledge of the appellant - Apart from specific information in the form of an affidavit highlighting his stand before the High Court which dealt with the contempt petition, the appellant had also tendered unconditional apology which was not even referred to, before passing orders sentencing the appellant to imprisonment - In the absence of specific reference about consultation with the appellant, it cannot be presumed and concluded that the appellant was responsible for incorrect information given by respondent no. 2 before the High Court - Further s. 15 of the Act as well as the Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules insist that for initiation  of criminal contempt, consent of the Advocate General is required - Any deviation from the prescribed Rules should not be accepted or condoned lightly and must be deemed to be fatal to the proceedings taken to initiate action for contempt. These provisions were not strictly adhered to - Therefore, the order of High Court convicting and sentencing the appellant is not sustainable and is set aside - Constitution of India - Articles 215 and 225 - Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules, 1975.

s.2(c) - Criminal contempt - Jurisdiction of court to initiate proceedings for contempt - Held: While dealing with criminal contempt in terms of s. 2(c) of the Act, strict procedures are to be adhered - The jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for contempt as also the jurisdiction to punish for contempt are discretionary with the court - Contempt generally and criminal contempt certainly is a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor - The person filing an application or petition before the court does not become a complainant or petitioner in the proceedings - He is just an informer - His duty ends with the facts being brought to the notice of the court- It is thereafter for the court to act on such information or not - Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules.