Back
2003 Supreme(Bom) 100
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.
Vinay Asharam Rathi .... Petitioner.
Versus
M.S. Rao others.... Respondents.
Civil Contempt Petition No. 459 of 2001, decided on 23-1-2003.
Advocates appeared :
A.F. Saxena, for petitioner.
Vinay Asharam Rathi, for petitioner present in person.
P. Janardhanan, A.A.G. with Ms. G.P. Mulekar, A.G.P., for respondents.
Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2(a) and 12 - Wilful and intentional disobedience - Apology - Nature of - Held - Apology has to show genuine repentance - Such apology should also not be conditional - Cannot depend upon ultimate finding. - In the course of argument, it was also submitted on behalf of the respondent that there was no willful delay on the part of the respondent in completing the investigation or submitting the report and in case, the Court is not satisfied with the explanation, the respondents are prepared to tender their apology. In case of apology by a party who is facing contempt proceedings, the apology has to disclose genuine repentance on the part of the party tendering apology for having violated the order of the Court. Such an apology cannot be a conditional apology. It cannot depend on the ultimate finding which the Court may arrive at in a contempt proceeding. It has to disclose and apparently reveal remorse or repentance on the part of the person who has violated the Court s order and realisation of illegal act on his part, and only in such cases, the question of considering apology by the person facing contempt proceedings can arises and be entertained and looked into.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156 - Non-compliance of order - Wilful and intentional disobedience - Police delayed investigation - Contra contention that delay was on part of petitioner who delayed in giving proper informations - Held - Explanation not found to be acceptable - Any act of indiscipline and dereliction of duty attracts penal action - No reason for delay is given - No sign of remorse and repentance - It warrants punishment under Contempt Act. - No doubt, in the case in hand, there is no attempt to fabricate the document or forge the document to justify the acts on the part of the respondents. However, it is pertinent to note that though the respondents have chosen to tender unconditional apology for incorrect statement made by them in relation to the date of submission of the report to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, has not shown any sign of remorse or repentance for having delayed the submission of the report or for not complying with the specific directions issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate under its orders dated 7th April, 2000 and 31st May, 2000. The respondent No. 1 is a police officer, holding the post of Senior Inspector of Police. Any act of indiscipline or dereliction of duties itself would warrant a strict action. Here is a case where in spite of specific directions by the Metropolitan Magistrate to submit the charge- sheet or report as expeditiously as possible and in spite of the fact that no investigation was carried out after 27th August, 2000, and the matter was just kept pending with the police authorities, no justification has been tendered for delay and there is no sign of remorse and repentance for such an act on the part of the respondent No. 1.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 2(a) and 12 - Wilful disobey of order - Contention that police investigation and submission of report was delayed - Contra contention that petitioner himself delayed the things - Held - Explanation not found to be reliable - Act of dereliction of duty and indiscipline also attracts penal action. - No doubt, in the case in hand, there is no attempt to fabricate the document or forge the document to justify the acts on the part of the respondents. However, it is pertinent to note that though the respondents have chosen to tender the unconditional apology for incorrect statement made by them in relation to the date of submission of the report to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, has not shown any sign of remorse or repentance for having delayed the submission of the report or for not complying with the specific directions issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate under its orders dated 7th April, 2000 and 31st May, 2000. The respondent No. 1 is a Police Officer, holding the post of Senior Inspector of Police. Any act of indiscipline or dereliction of duties itself would warrant a strict action. Here is a case where in spite of specific directions by the Metropolitan Magistrate to submit the charge- sheet or report as expeditiously as possible and in spite of the fact that no investigation was carried out after 27th August, 2000, and the matter was just kept pending with the police authorities, no justification has been tendered for delay and there is no sign of remorse and repentance for such an act on the part of the respondent No. 1, and therefore, certainly warrants punishment for non-compliance of the said order under the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. The facts relevant for the decision in the matter, in brief, are that, the petitioner lodged complaints being Criminal Case No. 8 of 1995 and 31 of 1995 in February and July, 1995 respectively with the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai under various sections of Indian Penal Code. Consequent to which, directions came to be issued under section 156 of the said Code to the police to investigate into the matter. Being dissatisfied with the procedure adopted by the police authorities, the petitioner again approached the Magistrate, consequent to which, the learned Magistrate by order dated 7th April, 2000, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Mumbai, directed the Inspector of Police, M.R.A. Marg Police Station, to do the needful in the matter while reminding him about the requirements of compliance of the directions issued earlier pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner. Even prior thereto, the respondents were reminded of the complaint by the petitioners and about the necessary directions issued by the Magistrate for investigation and therefore, the necessity to do the needful in the matter by the police. Further, on 31st May, 2000, directed the Inspector of Police at M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai that matter was already sent to the police under section 156(3) of the Code in terms of C.C. No. 8/IR/95 as well as 31/IR/95 and therefore the police were required to file either the charge-sheet or the summary report as early as possible. Thereafter, the respondents recorded M.E.C.R. No. 5 of 2000 on 18th of June, 2000 in relation to Complaint No. 8 of 1995 of the petitioner and also recorded M.E.C.R. No. 6 of 2000 on 7th July, 2000 in relation to complaint No. 31 of 1995 of the petitioner. In relation to the M.E.C.R. No. 5 of 2000, statements of four witnesses namely, Nilkumar Ramgopal Gupta, Mukat Simon John, C. Chandran and Geeta Kanthariya, came to be recorded on 20th, 23rd, 23rd and 24th June, 2000 respectively. In relation to M.E.C.R. No. 6 of 2000, statements of the petitioner, Anil Shridher Purandare, Farukh Ajmeri, Nilkumar Ramgopal Gupta came to be recorded on 7th July, 22nd August, and 7th July, and 7th July, 2000 respectively. The Senior Police Inspector of M.R.A. Marg Police Station, thereafter, submitted its report to the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 1st June, 2001.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of investigation, he had approached the office of the respondent No. 2 for necess
