One Day Jail for 12 Men Who Attacked Delhi HC Commissioners in Kolkata Over Fake Samsung Phones Case

One Day Jail for 12 Men Who Attacked Delhi HC Commissioners in Kolkata Over Fake Samsung Phones Case
X
While awarding simple imprisonment of one day to 12 men for attacking its Commissioners in Kolkata during raids on fake Samsung phones, the Court held that the assault amounted to criminal contempt and obstruction of justice

The Delhi High Court on Friday, August 22, 2025, convicted twelve men of criminal contempt and sentenced them to one day’s simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000 each for assaulting court-appointed Advocate Commissioners who had gone to Kolkata to probe the sale of counterfeit Samsung mobile phones.

In a detailed 44 page judgment, a Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that obstructing the work of Advocate Commissioners amounted to interference in the administration of justice.

"If such of those persons who have interfered with the administration of justice are not dealt with heavy hands, the majesty of law will come down in the eyes of ordinary citizens, which will have a deleterious effect on the fabric of the society. It is, therefore, imperative; rather, a duty of the Court, to ensure that people who interfere in the administration of justice are dealt with severely so that people respect and adhere to the law for the rule of law to prevail,” the Court held.

The case dates back to January 13, 2015, when 11 Advocate Commissioners appointed by the Delhi High Court were tasked with raiding shops in the Khidderpore and Fancy Market areas of Kolkata.

These raids were conducted as part of a suit filed by Samsung Electronics against local traders accused of selling counterfeit Samsung products, including mobile phones, tablets and accessories.

The High Court initiated suo motu proceedings after the matter was mentioned before it by Advocate Shravan Sahary, one of the 11 Advocate Commissioners.

The Court was informed that the Commissioners who had gone to Kolkata to perform the task entrusted to them were attacked by an unruly mob which had gathered to prevent them from carrying out the Court’s mandate.

Advocate Sahary told the Court that he was severely injured around his right eye and left cheek, and that two of his front teeth were broken in the incident.

He added that other Commissioners accompanying him were also beaten up.

The Court observed that “the Commissioners had been brutally beaten up by the contemnors, striking terror in their minds and forcing them to flee from the place. The facts reveal that the idea was to dissuade the Local Commissioners from performing the work assigned to them by the Court.”

Though all the contemnors tendered their unconditional apologies, the Court said the fact remained that the Advocate Commissioners had been manhandled, suffered serious injuries, and even police officers accompanying them had also been attacked.

“This Court is inclined to impose a fine of Rs. 2,000 on each of these contemnors and sentence them to undergo simple imprisonment for one day,” the Court ordered.

Reliance was placed on Top Court's Judgment in Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352, wherein the Court held, "The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined."

Punishing the contemnors, the Court said, “Viewed in this manner, Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24 and 27 have interfered in the administration of justice and are, therefore, liable to be punished for criminal contempt.”

Concluding the judgment, the Court reiterated that the observations made were confined only to proceedings initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act and not for any other purpose. The criminal cases which had been initiated would be decided on the strength of the evidence adduced in those cases.

With these directions, the Court disposed of the present petition.

Case Title: Court on Its Own Motion v. M/s Obsession Naaz & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 22 August 2025

Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Click here to download judgment

Tags

Next Story