The Madras High Court on Friday sentenced IPS officer Sampath Kumar to 15 days imprisonment in the contempt of court petition filed by cricketer MS Dhoni..A bench of Justices SS Sundar and Sunder Mohan, however, suspended the sentence for thirty days to allow Kumar to file an appeal..Dhoni filed a defamation suit before the High Court against Zee Media, Kumar and others over alleged malicious statements and news reports which claimed that he was involved in betting and match fixing of Indian Premier League (IPL) matches in 2013.The former captain of the Indian cricket team sought to restrain the defendants including Kumar who had initially probed the IPL betting scam, from issuing or publishing defamatory statements against him related to the issue.The High Court had earlier granted an interim injunction and restrained Zee, Kumar and others from making defamatory statements against Dhoni.Subsequently, Zee and the others filed their written statements in response to the defamation suit. Following the written statements, Dhoni filed an application claiming that Kumar had gone on to make further defamatory statements in his written submissions, and thus prayed that contempt of court proceedings be initiated against Kumar..During the course of hearing, Dhoni had told the Court that he was not interested in prosecuting Sampath for contempt given that the latter tendered an apology for the remarks he had made.However, Sampath refused to do so and argued that the contempt petition against him was not maintainable..Dhoni had then submitted copies of such statements made by Sampath against him and against the Supreme Court. On examining the statements, the Court remarked they were indeed contemptuous. ."This Court is really surprised to see that a specific statement is made by the respondent making an allegation as if the Hon'ble Supreme Court deviated from its focus on “Rule of Law” and shelved the deposition in sealed cover for reasons, the respondent unable to comprehend. He has further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court chose to keep the select portion of the report of the Justice Mudgal Committee under sealed cover which is required to be probed by SIT for reason best known to the Supreme Court. The respondent, thereafter, in Para No.22 of his additional written statement, while making serious allegations against the Senior Counsels who are representing the petitioner and about the present Standing Counsel, has made an allegation that this Court chose to extend the injunction order without giving a chance to defend. He described the order of injunction as a clear misuse of judicial process and a bad precedent. From a reading of the statements of the respondent in the additional written statement, this Court is prima facie convinced that the statements are contumacious and appears to have been made with an intention to scandalize and lower the authority of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court," the High Court said..MS Dhoni was represented by advocate PR Raman.G Sampath was represented by advocate Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan..[Read Order]
The Madras High Court on Friday sentenced IPS officer Sampath Kumar to 15 days imprisonment in the contempt of court petition filed by cricketer MS Dhoni..A bench of Justices SS Sundar and Sunder Mohan, however, suspended the sentence for thirty days to allow Kumar to file an appeal..Dhoni filed a defamation suit before the High Court against Zee Media, Kumar and others over alleged malicious statements and news reports which claimed that he was involved in betting and match fixing of Indian Premier League (IPL) matches in 2013.The former captain of the Indian cricket team sought to restrain the defendants including Kumar who had initially probed the IPL betting scam, from issuing or publishing defamatory statements against him related to the issue.The High Court had earlier granted an interim injunction and restrained Zee, Kumar and others from making defamatory statements against Dhoni.Subsequently, Zee and the others filed their written statements in response to the defamation suit. Following the written statements, Dhoni filed an application claiming that Kumar had gone on to make further defamatory statements in his written submissions, and thus prayed that contempt of court proceedings be initiated against Kumar..During the course of hearing, Dhoni had told the Court that he was not interested in prosecuting Sampath for contempt given that the latter tendered an apology for the remarks he had made.However, Sampath refused to do so and argued that the contempt petition against him was not maintainable..Dhoni had then submitted copies of such statements made by Sampath against him and against the Supreme Court. On examining the statements, the Court remarked they were indeed contemptuous. ."This Court is really surprised to see that a specific statement is made by the respondent making an allegation as if the Hon'ble Supreme Court deviated from its focus on “Rule of Law” and shelved the deposition in sealed cover for reasons, the respondent unable to comprehend. He has further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court chose to keep the select portion of the report of the Justice Mudgal Committee under sealed cover which is required to be probed by SIT for reason best known to the Supreme Court. The respondent, thereafter, in Para No.22 of his additional written statement, while making serious allegations against the Senior Counsels who are representing the petitioner and about the present Standing Counsel, has made an allegation that this Court chose to extend the injunction order without giving a chance to defend. He described the order of injunction as a clear misuse of judicial process and a bad precedent. From a reading of the statements of the respondent in the additional written statement, this Court is prima facie convinced that the statements are contumacious and appears to have been made with an intention to scandalize and lower the authority of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court," the High Court said..MS Dhoni was represented by advocate PR Raman.G Sampath was represented by advocate Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan..[Read Order]
