11/4/2020 K. k. jha kamal v.

jharkhand high court - Advocatespedia

K. k. jha kamal v. jharkhand high court

The history leading to the initiation of the contempt proceedings against K.K. Jha 'Kamal' a lawyer practicing in this Court
as well as against his client Ashok Kumar Gupta, the contemners is a chequered one. The details are as follows: (a) A title
suit was filed by the respondent 3 against Ashok Kumar Gupta, the second contemner, the Secretary, Tanzeem-e-Sufia, in
the year 1983. Ultimately, this suit was decreed. The said decree was put in execution in Execution Case No. 12 of 1984 in
the Court of Sub Judge-I, Giridih. (b) One Ram Lakhan Prasad, an advocate, respondent 2 continued to appear on behalf
of the decree holders. An objection was raised in execution petition on behalf of the said Ashok Kumar Gupta, Secretary
that the entire decree and the orders passed in Execution Proceeding was a nullity, because the said Shri Ram Lakhan
Prasad did not file any vakalatnama before pleading the case on behalf of the respondent-decree holders. (c) The said
objection was disallowed by the Sub Judge I, Giridih and ultimately final order was passed to proceed with the execution.
(d) Challenging this order, Ashok Kumar Gupta, the Secretary defendant in the suit, filed an appeal before the District
Judge, Giridih being M.A. No. 23 of 2004. (e) The above appeal was heard by the Vth Additional District Judge. Giridih.
The matter was argued at length by both the parties. (f) Ultimately, on 21.12.2005. the learned Vth Additional District
Judge. Giridih passed a reasoned order holding the Shri Ram Lakhan Prasad was entitled to appear and plead on behalf of
the respondent-decree holders and confirmed the orders passed by the Sub Judge. (g) Thereupon the said Ashok Kumar
Gupta, the appellant therein chose to file review petition before the same Judge raising the very same points. Again the
matter was heard. (h) Ultimately, the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Giridih dismissed the review application
through a detailed and elaborate order dated 16.9.2006. Strangely, instead of challenging the aforesaid order dated
21.12.2005 in the appeal and the order dated 16.9.2006 passed in review application before appropriate forum, Ashok
Kumar Gupta, the second contemner through counsel Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal', the first contemner had chosen to file the writ
petition before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India registered as W.P. (C) No. 7126 of 2006
making two prayers: (i) Seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed in Misc. Appeal No. 23
of 2004 dated 21.12.2005 and the order passed in Review dated 16.9.2005 by Vth Additional District Judge on the ground
of mala fide. (ii) Seeking for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Governor of State of Jharkhand to accord
sanction for criminal prosecution as against Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the Vth Additional District Judge, Giridih under Section
197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting the said Judge for the offence under Section 219 of the Indian Penal
Code on the ground that the aforesaid orders dated 21.12.2005 and 16.9.2006 were passed by him illegally and against the
materials on record. This writ petition came up for hearing before the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli on
21.12.2006. The learned single Judge found that there are serious allegations made against the Vth Additional District
Judge, Giridih who was arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the writ petition. He further found that the allegation made in the
writ petition are not aimed simply to challenge the judgment rendered by Mr. Pankaj Kumar, respondent No. 1 in a
dignified and legal manner but rather intended to be used as a pressure tactics to scandalize the Court and undermine the
majesty of law. He as well noticed various serious allegations against the judicial officer, who was sought to be prosecuted
for the offence under Section 219 of the Indian Penal Code on obtaining the sanction of the Governor under Section 197 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal', the counsel for the writ petition Ashok Kumar Gupta argued at
length. The learned single Judge, during the course of the hearing asked the (earned counsel, Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal'
appearing for the writ petitioner to point out the materials on record to substantiate these allegations made in the writ
petition against the judicial officer. However, Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal', learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner did
not point out any material to substantiate such serious allegations. He simply referred to some documents. As a matter of
fact, there is specific allegation in the writ petition that the judicial order passed by the respondent No. 1-judicial officer
was mala fide: same is a deliberate judicial order favouring respondents 2 and 3, the decree holders and in complete
partiality and knowing fully well that by passing illegal order he showed favour to the respondents 2 and 3-decree holders
at the cost of principles of impartiality and thereby he committed judicial dishonesty. After going through the documents
https://advocatespedia.com/K._k._jha_kamal_v._jharkhand_high_court 1/2
11/4/2020 K. k. jha kamal v. jharkhand high court - Advocatespedia

referred to by the learned Counsel, Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal'. the learned single Judge found that there is no material at all
whatsoever in the writ petition or the documents filed along with that to support the said serious allegations made against
the Presiding Officer-respondent No. 1, who has been impleaded as a party in the writ petition. On having found that these
allegations made in the writ petition are apparently contemptuous in nature and tend to scandalize the Presiding Officer of
the District Court and lower its authority, the learned single Judge. prima facie, was satisfied that the allegations levelled
against the Presiding Officer constitute criminal contempt. Since in terms of Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the
criminal contempt matter has to be heard by a Bench of not less than two Hon'ble Judges, the learned single Judge passed
an order directing the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to post it before the appropriate Bench
for initiating appropriate contempt proceedings against the writ petitioner, namely, Ashok Kumar Gupta, the Secretary of
Tanzeem-e-Sufia. After the above order was dictated in the open Court, Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal', Advocate on behalf of the
petitioner, began to threaten the learned single Judge in a most derogative manner challenging his authority for having
issued the contempt against the writ petitioner, his client. Immediately, the learned single Judge, on noticing the
unbecoming behaviour of the counsel, passed the following order: After the above order was passed in the Open Court.
Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal', Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner threatened the Court by saying that "by initiating
contempt proceedings, the controversy will not die down and it will flare up". He used these words in a most offensive and
derogatory manner in the Open Court in full view of a large number of lawyers including some senior members of the Bar.
He further remarked that he is already facing two Contempts and is ready to face another. This action on the part of the
learned Advocate is itself contemptuous. I am constrained to initiate proceedings for contempt against Mr. K.K. Jha
'Kamal', Advocate, to protect the majesty of law and dignity of the Court. Slave this action amounts to Criminal Contempt,
I direct the Registry to place this matter also before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration by an appropriate Larger
Bench. Proceedings against Mr. Jha will be placed as a separate contempt proceedings. I feel that personal appearance of
Mr. Jha is necessary before the Bench. He is directed to furnish bail bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand) before the Jt. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court with an undertaking to appear before the appropriate Bench
when the matter is listed. The Registrar will communicate to Mr. Jha the date of listing of the matter before the
appropriate Larger Bench after obtaining instructions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The next day, i.e., on 22.12.2006.
the Joint Registrar (List and Computers) of this Court placed the file before the Chief Justice through a note for a direction
for initiating criminal contempt against both Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, the writ petitioner and against Mr. K.K. Jha
'Kamal' his lawyer, as directed by the order dated 21.12.2006 in the writ petition No. 7126 of 2006. The Chief Justice, by
the Administrative order dated 22.12.2006 directed for instituting the contempt proceeding against both of them and
directed for posting the matter before the Larger Bench of 5 (five) Judges to be presided over by the Chief Justice on
5.1.2007. In the meantime, on 4.1.2007, a Letter Patent Appeal has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-contemner,
Ashok Kumar Gupta through the same counsel, K.K. Jha 'Kamal' challenging the order dated 21.12.2006 passed by the
learned single Judge Justice Permod Kohli initiating contempt proceedings against both.

Retrieved from "https://advocatespedia.com/index.php?title=K._k._jha_kamal_v._jharkhand_high_court&oldid=151342"

This page was last edited on 23 July 2020, at 13:32.

This page has been accessed 83 times.

https://advocatespedia.com/K._k._jha_kamal_v._jharkhand_high_court 2/2