Allahabad High Court fined Devendra Kumar Dixit Rs 2,000 for making false bribery allegations against judges. The Court found him guilty of criminal contempt but gave leniency due to his age and first-time offense.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court gave a strong message against people making false accusations on the judiciary. The Court fined a man named Devendra Kumar Dixit with Rs 2,000 after finding him guilty of criminal contempt of court.
The Court said that he wrongly and without any solid proof accused High Court judges of being involved in corruption.
The case was heard by a bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Brij Raj Singh. The judges found that in 2016, Devendra Kumar Dixit made a complaint which was false and baseless. In that complaint, he alleged that High Court judges took bribe (money) to dismiss his writ petition.
The judges clearly said that such false allegations are serious and harm the respect and dignity of the Court.
ALSO READ: Corrupt Judge | “Post Comes With Great Responsibility”: HC Upholds Dismissal of an ADJ
The Court said:
“We hold contemnor-Devendra Kumar Dixit, … guilty of having committed criminal contempt of this Court as envisaged under Section 2(c)(i) of the Act, 1971, but looking to his old age and the fact that this is his first offence, we impose only a fine of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited by him before the Senior Registrar, High Court, Lucknow within a period of one month from today, failing which he will undergo simple imprisonment of one week.”
This means that the Court found him guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but as he is old and it was his first mistake, the Court decided not to send him to jail straight away. Instead, he was told to pay Rs 2,000 within one month to the Senior Registrar of the High Court at Lucknow. If he does not pay this fine, he will be jailed for one week.
This matter began in 2016 when the then Acting Chief Justice ordered contempt proceedings against Dixit.
Later, when Dixit came before the Court, he said that he had sent his complaint to the President of India, and he did not know how it reached the High Court. He also asked the Court to give him a copy of the covering letter from Rashtrapati Bhawan (President’s office), which he claimed would help prove his side.
But the Court refused to give the letter. It said that the letter was not important for the contempt case.
Then, in January 2024, the Court officially framed the charges against Dixit. Still, he again asked for the covering letter, saying he needed it to support his arguments.
On March 5, the High Court completed the final hearing and reserved its judgment. Finally, on March 24, the decision was announced. The Court again said that he himself had accepted the contents of the complaint, so there was no point in asking for the Rashtrapati Bhawan letter.
The Court said:
“Therefore, there is no justification as to why the covering letter/forwarding letter issued by the Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi is required when he himself had admitted the contents of the complaint dated 30.04.2016.”
The judges read the complaint in detail and clearly said that the words used in it clearly fall under criminal contempt. The Court said that Dixit’s words not only insulted the court but also tried to disturb the justice system.
The Court strongly said-
“Complaint has scandalised and lowered down the authority of the court, which amounts to interference in the administration of justice.”
The Court also noted that Dixit did not file any affidavit or apology to say sorry for his actions. Because of that, the Court had to find him guilty.
Dixit was represented in court by Advocate Indra Bhushan Singh, and Dixit himself also appeared personally in front of the judges.
ALSO READ: Atul Subhash Points To LawChakra Video in His Heart-Wrenching Suicide Note
This judgment once again shows that the judiciary will not allow anyone to damage its reputation with false and baseless claims, and such actions will be strictly dealt with, even if the punishment is mild due to special reasons like age or first-time offence.
CASE TITLE:
State of UP v. Devendra Kumar Dixit.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
