Delhi High Court: In a criminal contempt proceeding against Kolkata vendors selling counterfeit Samsung devices and other persons who had brutally beaten up 11 Advocate Commissioners sent by the Court to raid and seize the said counterfeit devices, the Division Bench of Subramonium Prasad* and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ, held 12 persons guilty of criminal contempt for willfully causing interference with administration of justice. The Court directed the contemnors to pay Rs. 2000 each as fine and to undergo simple imprisonment for one day.
Background
The instant case arose out of a mentioning made by one of the 11 Advocate Commissioners, who had been appointed by the Court vide order dated 23-12-2024 (impugned order), who stated that while performing the duties entrusted to them by the Court, they had been attacked and beaten up by a mob. The Single Judge, after perusing the record, had opined that the attack on the Advocate Commissioners appeared to be pre-mediated and constituted a ‘brazen interference in the administration of justice’. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the present Division Bench for criminal contempt proceedings.
The impugned order was passed in CS (OS) No 4024 of 2014 (Samsung trademark case) wherein the Court had restrained 15 vendors of Kolkata from selling, distributing or dealing in counterfeit Samsung products including hand held phones, mobile phones, tables and accessories bearing the Samsung trademark. The Court had also appointed 11 Advocate Commissioners and directed them to prepare inventory of the counterfeit products being sold under the Samsung trademark, to seize the said products and to release them on ‘superdari’.
The Advocate Commissioners were assisted by policemen and a local informer to navigate the market place and locate the exact shops. The Advocate Commissioner had stated that as soon as he and his team had entered the commercial complex, the shopkeepers around them had started pulling their shutters, switching off their lights and closing their shops. Subsequently, a huge crowd had surrounded his team and began manhandling them. He submitted that he had been brutally beaten up, knocked unconscious for a brief time and then chased by the crown as he managed to escape. The other Advocate Commissioners also had similar experiences and were assaulted by the mob as they tried to conduct the raid. One of the Advocate Commissioners was informed by a shopkeeper that the shop owners had prior knowledge of the raid by the commission and had deliberately closed their shops.
It was stated that a crowd had gathered on the street and had started attacking the taxi and bus used by the Advocate Commissioners and the situation had turned so unruly that that the Police Riot Control Van had to be called to control the crowd.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court opined that the purpose of a contempt proceeding is to uphold the majesty of law and to punish an offender for willful disobedience or obstruction of justice. To bring out a case of contempt, the alleged contemnors must be aware that their conduct was oriented towards interfering in the administration of justice.
The Court opined that although a mob of around 200 people had gathered, it was not established how many of them were aware of the Court orders or were mere bystanders who had been misguided about the incident. Such persons who were unaware that they were interfering in the administration of justice could not be brought within the purview of criminal contempt. The Court further noted that a mob was incited by the shopkeepers with the sole purpose of teaching the Advocate Commissioners a lesson and to scare them away.
Ultimately, the Court identified 12 people who were guilty of criminal contempt and had interfered in the administration of justice. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Rs 2000 on each of the contemnors and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one day.
[Suo Motu v. Obsession Naaz, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5606, decided on 22-8-2025]
*Judgement authored by- Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Varun Goswami, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Soumya Chakraborty, Senior Advocate, Nandini Sen, Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Pankaj Balwan, Saarthak Bansal, Bahar U. Barqi, Sagar Saxena, Abhishek Singh, Karan Chaudhary, Krisnandu Haldar, Md. Waqar, Sushila Narang, Amit Ranjan, Advocates
