JUDGMENT - SINHA D.D., J.:---Heard Mr. Sanyal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 5. Other respondents though served, none appears for them.

2. Contempt appeal is filed against the judgment and order, dated 4th/7th March, 1994, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1,000-00. It will be appropriate to consider the relevant facts and circumstances which have given rise to initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the appellant. Those are as follows:---

3. On 31-5-1991 offences punishable under sections 420, 392, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against respondents 1 to 3 vide Crime No. 218/91 at Tahsil Police Station, Nagpur, and Criminal Case No. 284 of 1991 was registered and the same was in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. The sum and substance of the prosecution case was that the respondent No. 4 was the proprietor of a Courier Agency-called "Thakkar Agencies". The alleged offence had taken place on 31-5-1991 on public road near Bhagwaghar Chowk, opposite Petrol Pump, Central Avenue Road, Nagpur. In the alleged crime, Police had seized a currency of Rs. 24,00,842-00 and other gold ornaments and the said amount was deposited with the Reserve Bank of India as per the orders of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 4 and other valuable items, namely gold and silver ornaments, were in possession of the Court.

4. Respondent No. 4 (Proprietor of a Courier Agency) had claimed the ownership of the said cash amount as well as gold and silver ornaments, since the same were entrusted to him by his respective parties for transportation in his regular course of business. The respondent No. 4, therefore, filed an application under section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code for release of the said property on 5-7-1991, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 124 of 1991. The trial Court, which was presided over by Judicial Magistrate, First Class-Shri S.Y. Kulkarni, considered the application and vide order, dated 28-8-1991, rejected the application of respondent No. 4 and the reason for rejecting the application mentioned in the order is thus :---

"Therefore, this Court did not feel it necessary to go in detail about the legality of his business but from the contention of the applicant when it is clear that he is not real owner of the seized amount and an amount being seized from the possession of the accused, during the investigation by the police. I do not find it proper to release the property as claimed by the applicant on his Supratnama. Hence, I come to the conclusion that the application deserves to be rejected, as the matter is under investigation and as the applicant has not satisfactorily provided that he is the only person who is entitled to get the seized amount."

5. Aggrieved by the order, dated 28-8-1991, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, the respondent No. 4 preferred criminal revision before this Court, which was registered as Criminal Application No. 176 of 1991. In view of the order passed by this Court in the said revision, the petitioner in the said revision, i.e., respondent No. 4, joined present respondents, 1, 2 and 3 as party-respondents to the said criminal revision. This Court, vide judgment and order, dated 1-11-1991, dismissed the criminal revision application preferred by the respondent No. 4 agency by observing thus:---

"22. According to me, if the amount is returned to the applicant who is neither the owner nor established his possession and nexus with the amount recovered from the accused, it will nothing but to grant a licence to encourage the person to carry on the illegal business. As the accused raised objections for return of amount which has been specifically discussed by the learned J.M.F.C., in his order dated 28

Click Here to Read the rest of this document