Holding

Criminal contempt proceedings under the MRTP Act must be heard and determined by a bench of at least two members; a single Chairman cannot validly decide such matters.

Summary

A complaint was lodged before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission against a computer training institute for admitting students to unrecognised courses and for publishing misleading advertisements. The Commission issued an interim injunction and, after the institute’s service advisor (the appellant) sent a letter alleging contempt, the Chairman of the Commission, sitting alone, found the appellant guilty of criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced him. The appellant appealed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, challenging the validity of the Chairman’s sole adjudication. The Supreme Court examined Sections 13B, 14, 15 and 18 of the MRTP Act and held that criminal contempt cases must be heard by a bench of not less than two members, mirroring the High Court requirement. Consequently, the order passed by the Chairman was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Commission for disposal by a proper bench, and the appellant’s criminal appeal was allowed while the parallel appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

Issues considered

Whether the Chairman of the MRTP Commission could, acting alone, hear and determine a criminal contempt proceeding under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act as empowered by Section 13B of the MRTP Act.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 12, s. 19
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969s. 13(B), s. 14, s. 15, s. 18, s. 2(c)

Subjects

criminal contemptMRTP ActContempt of Courts Actbench of two judgesprocedural violationinjunctionmisleading advertisementcommission jurisdiction

Judgment

- J.K. GUPTA
v.
D.G. INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION AND ORS.
A

NOVEMBER 4, 2004

[B.N. AGRA WAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] B

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969; Ss. 2(c), l 3(B),
14, 15 and 18. Complaint against a Computer Training Institute-MRTP
Commi~sion directed the Institute not to admit students in the unrecognized C
courses and also directed it against issuing any misleading advertisement-
Vacating of the order-Petition filed by the appellant making certain
contemptuous allegations against the Commission-Chairman of the
Commission found the appellant-Officer of the Institute guilty of criminal
contempt and convicted him-On appeal, Held: Though the Commission has
been empowered to exercise all powers as conferred upon a High Court to D
punish for contempt but the power should have been exercised in accordance
with the provisions and in the manner as prescribed under the Act-Provisions
under Section 18 of the MRTP Act stipulate that the contempt proceedings
shall be heard by a Bench comprising of not less than two Judges-Since the
contempt proceeding was heard and determined by the Chairman alone, the
provisions under Section 18 of the Act violated-Impugned order set aside- E
Matter remanded to the Commission to dispose of the contempt proceedings
in accordance with law-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Section 19.

A complaint was filed against respondent No.2, a Computer
Education Centre/Institute before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade p
Practices Commission. The Commission passed an interim order'
restraining the Institute from admitting students in any unrecognized
courses and also restrained it from issuing misleading advertisement for
job placement. Appellant, Service advisor of the Institute, filed a petition
for vacating the order of injunction making certain contemptuous
allegations against the Commission. The Chairman alone sitting as Single G
Member considered the matter and fOl~nd the appellant guilty of criminal
contempt and convicted him. Hence the present appeals.

Allowing the appeal filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts

963 H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Act and dismissing the other criminal appeal, the Court
HELD: By virtue of Section 13B of the MRTP Act, the Commission
has been empowered to exercise all the powers to punish for contempt
which have been conferred upon a High court and the same have to be
exercised in the manner prescribed under the Act. Language of Section
B 18 of the Act that "cr:iminal contempt under Section 15 shall be heard and
determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges" is very clear and
unequivocal and in case of criminal contempt, the contempt proceeding
has to be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges.
The contempt proceeding for punishing the appellant for criminal
C contempt ought to have been heard by the Chairman along with an.other
member or the Chairman could have assigned the matter for hearing to
any two members of the Commission but he alone was not justified in
hearing and detei:-mining the proceeding which was in violation of the
provisions of Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed
by the Chairman is liable to be set aside on this ground alone and the
D matter has to be remitted to the Commission for disposal of the contempt
proceeding in terms of Section 15 of the Act. Hence, impugned order is
set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commission to dispose of the
contempt proceeding in accordance with law. Consequently, the Criminal
Appeal becomes infructuous. (969-A, D, F, GI
E
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 664
of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.97 of the Monopolies and
Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi in C.P. in I.A. No. 82/
F 97 in U.T.P./R.T.P.E. No. 66 of 1997.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 1184 of 1977.

G Vijay Kumar and Atul Sharma for Vishwajit Singh for the Appellant.

Ashok Bhan, D.S. Mehra and S.W.A. Qadri, for P. Parmeswaran, E.C.
Vidya Sagar (NP) for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H
J.K. GUPTA v. D.G. INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION [B.N. AGRAWAL, J.) 965

B.N. AGRA WAL, J. Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 1997 has been filed A
by the appellant under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against order rendered by the Chairman,
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission whereby the appellant
has been convicted under Section 12 of the Act and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.
2,000/- , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of B
one month. Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 1997 is by special leave challenging
the said order.

The short facts are that upon a complaint filed under the provisions of
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to C
as 'the M.R.T.P. Act') before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices
Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'), Unfair Trade
Practice Enquiry No. 66 of 1997 was registered by the Commission and
Chairman of the Commission on 7th .February, 1997 issued notice and passed
an interim order restraining Computer Education Centre (respondent No. 2)
to admit students in any course unless the same is recognized by any D
appropriate authority. Respondent No. 2 was further restrained from issuing
advertisements regarding any course which is not recognized with a confirmed
job placement, if respondent No. 2-institute did not guarantee any
procurement of job. Upon receipt of the notice, the appellant, who was Service
advisor of respondent No. 2, sent a letter to the Commission for vacation of E
order of injunction making therein certain contemptuous allegations against
the Commission. Upon receipt of such a letter, as in the opinion of the
Chairman of the Commission a case of criminal contempt against the appellant
was made out, notice was issued to him to show cause as to why he be not
punished for criminal contempt, on receipt whereof, reply to show cause was
filed and thereafter the Chairman, after considering all the pros and cons of F
the matter, by the impugned order passed on 9th July, 1997 found the appellant
guilty under Section 12 of the Act for criminal contempt and convicted him
which gave rise to the filing of these appeals, as stated above.

The only question which falls for our consideration is as to whether in
the present case, undisputedly being a case of criminal contempt, Chairman G
alone was empowered to deal with the contempt proceeding or the same
should have been heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two
members, as required under Section 18 of the Act? 1!1 order to decide this
question, it will be useful to notice the provisions of Section 138 of the
M.R.T.P. Act, besides Sections 2(c), 14, 15 and 18 of the Act, which are H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A quoted hereinbelow.
Section 13B of the M.R.T.P. Act reads as under: -

"l 3B. Power to punish for contempt - The Commission shall have,
and exercise, the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect
B of contempt of itself as a High Court has and may exercise and, for
this purpose, the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
shall have effect subjec't to the modifications that -

(a) the reference therein to a High Court shall be construed as
including a reference to the Commission;
c (b) the reference to the Advocate -General in section 15 of the said
Act shall be construed as a reference to such Law Officer as the
Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify in this behalf."

Sections 2(c), 14, 15 and 18 of the Act read as under :-
D
"2(c) - "Criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words,
spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or
otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever
which -

E (i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower
the authority of, any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course
of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to
F obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."

"S.14. Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court
or a High Court.-( I) When it is alleged, or appears to the Supreme
Court or the High Court upon its own view, that a person has been
guilty of contempt committed in its presence or hearing, the court
G may cause :mch person to be detained in custody, and, at any time
before the rising of the court, on the same day, or as early as possible
thereafter, shall

(a) cause him to be informed in writing of the contempt with which
he is charged;
H
J.K. GUPTA v. D.G. INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION [B.N. AGRAWAL, J.] 967

(b) afford him an opportunity to make his defence to the charge; A
(c) after taking such evidence as may be necessary or as may be
offered by such person and after hearing him, proceed, either
forthwith or after adjournment, to determine the matter of the
charge; and
(d) make such order for the punishment or discharge of such person B
as may be just.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section {I), where
a person charged with contempt under that sub-section applies, whether
orally or in writing, to have the charge against him tried by some
Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing C
the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the court is of
opinion that it is practicable to do so and that in the interests of
proper administration of justice the application should be allowed, it
shall cause the matter to be placed, together with a statement of the
facts of the case, before the Chief Justice for such directions as he D
may think fit to issue as respects the trial thereof.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, in any
trial of a person charged with contempt under sub-section (I) which
is held, in pursuance of a direction given under sub-section (2), by a
Judge other than the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing E
the offence is alleged to have been committed, it shall not be necessary
for the Judge or Judges in whose presence or hearing the offence is
alleged to have been committed to appear as a witness and the
statement placed before the Chief Justice under sub-section (2) shall
be treated as evidence in the case.
F
(4) Pending the determination of the charge, the court may direct
that a person charged with contempt under this section shall be detained
in such custody as it may specify;

Provided that he shall be released on bail, if a bond for such sum
of money as the court thinks sufficient is executed with or without G
sureties conditioned that the person charged shall attend at the time
and place mentioned in the bond and shall continue to so attend until
otherwise directed by the court;

Provided further that the court may, if it thinks fit, instead of
taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A without sureties for his attendance as aforesaid."

"S.15.-Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases.-(l) In the
case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in
·1
section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on
its own motion or on a motion made by -
B (a) the advocate-General, or
(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the advocate-
General, or

(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union territory of Delhi,
c such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person,
with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.

(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court,
the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the
D subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or,
in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in
this behalf.

(3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify
E the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

Explanation. In this section, the expression "Advocate- General"
means

(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-General or the
F Solicitor-General;
(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the State
or any of the States for which the High Court has been established;
(c) in relation to the court of a Judicial Commissioner, such Law
Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the
G Official Gazette, speCify in this behalf."

"S.-18. Hearing of cases of criminal contempt to be by Benches.-( I)
Every case of criminal contempt under section 15 shall be heard and
determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges.

H (2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to the Court of a Judicial "'
JK GUPTA 1·. D.G. INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION [B.N. AGRAWAL, l] 969

Commissioner." [ Emphasis added ] A
From a conspectus of the aforesaid provisions, it would be clear that by
virtue of Section 13B of the M.R.T.P. Act, the Commission has been
empowered to exercise all the powers to punish for contempt which have
been conferred upon a High Court and the same have to be exercised in the
manner prescribed under the Act. Section 2(c) of the Act defines 'criminal B
contempt'. Under Section 15 of the Act, action for crimi11al contempt, other
than a contempt referred to in Section 14 of the Act, can be taken. Under
Section 14, action can be taken if the contempt has been committed in the
presence of or hearing of the court. Section 18 lays down that every case of
criminal contempt under Section 15 shall be heard and .determined by a C
Bench of not less than two Judges which would obviously show that in the
case of the Commission, a proceeding for criminal contempt has to be heard
and determined by a Bench of not less than two members. Commission to
be established under Section 5 of the M.R.T.P. Act shall comprise a Chairman
and not less than two and not more than eight members to be appointed by
the Central Government which shows that the Commission would consist of D
a Chairman and at least two members. Language of Section 18 of the Act that
"criminal contempt under Section 15 shall be heard and determined by a
Bench of not less than two Judges" is very clear and unequivocal and in case
of criminal contempt, the contempt proceeding has to be heard and determined
by a Bench of not less than two Judges. As the Commission consists of
Chairman and at least two members, the contempt proceeding for punishing E
the appellant for criminal contempt ought to have been heard by the Chairman
along with another member or the Chairman could have assigi:ed the matter
for hearing to any two members of the Commission but he alone was not
justified in hearing and determining the proceeding which was in violation of
the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed F
by the Chairman is liable to be set aside on this ground alone an.d the matter
has to be remitted to the Commission for disposal of the contempt proceeding
in terms of Section 15 of the Act.

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 1997 is allowed, impugned
order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commission to dispose G
of the contempt proceeding in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid
order, Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 1997 has been rendered infructuous and
the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

S.K.S. Cr!. A.No. 664/97 allowed and

Crl A.No. 1184/97 dismissed.