( 1 ) THE petitioner before us who is a Senior Citizen complains, and perhaps with some justification, that he has been agitating his complaints before the Courts for the last nineteen years and he has stated with some level of bitterness, that despite all the effort put in by him particularly since he appears in person, that the results have been far from satisfactory. To summarise, the petitioner sought to prosecute the accused who are promoters of the Jayanthi Apartments Building and he had alleged that in the course of the transactions that the accused had committed several offences mainly centering around cheating and criminal breach of trust as also under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership of Flats Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'flats Act' ). If one peruses the course of litigations, the substratum of the petitioner's grievance is that obviously certain influences were at work from the side of the accused which was why strange orders seem to emerge. In the first instance, the private complaint came to be dismissed and the petitioner's revision application against that order also failed. Thereafter, the petitioner came up to this Court and this Court by an order dated 30-3-1994 allowed the criminal petition and remanded the proceeding to the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is seriously aggrieved by the fact that despite this direction of the High Court that the Trial Court once again effectively discharged the accused on this occasion by recording the conclusion that certain offences were time barred and that in respect of the remaining that the dispute was of a civil nature. Once again the petitioner came upto the revisional Court which Court effectively confirmed the order with slight modifications. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the high Court for a second time and on this occasion, by order dated 15-2-1999 the earlier orders were quashed, the complaint was restored and the Trial Court was directed to dispose off the case according to law. On this occasion, the Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 4-1-2001 which is a rather lengthy speaking order once again acquitted the accused of all the major offences except those under the Flats Act and imposed a very minor penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on accused 1. This order is the subject-matter of a further revision petition filed by the petitioner to this Court. The petition has been admitted and it is pending.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the manner in which the learned Magistrate has disposed off the proceeding in the face of the two earlier orders of the High Court which are really complimentary to each other, constitutes contempt insofar as the petitioner alleges that the judicial officer has disregarded the directions of the High Court. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is dissatisfied and aggrieved by the final order passed by the Trial Court particularly insofar as the accused have been acquitted of all the major offences and it is his submission that despite conclusions that are reflected in the High Court orders which were binding on the trial Court that it is very clear, that the learned Magistrate has acted not only in disregard but in defiance of the High Court order. Apart from the revision petition which is for corrective action, it is the petitioner's contention that if a judicial officer discharges his functions in this fashion that the issue is actionable under the Contempt of Courts Act vis-avis the conduct of the judicial officer and the manner in which the proceeding has been disposed off. Consequently he submits that even though the learned Advocate General has not accorded any sanction that this Court must entertain the proceeding in exercise of its suo motu jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has drawn our attention to several passages from the commentary on the Contempt of Courts Act by the learned Author v. G. Ramachandran in support of his contention

Click Here to Read the rest of this document