The court clarified that procedural non-compliance in issuing notices under Section 41A does not equate to contempt if the accused is given opportunities to comply with the investigation.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. R.C. Kodekar waives service of rule on behalf of respondent.

2. This petition is filed under Section 12 r/w Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India praying for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for not complying with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and order dated 11.07.2022 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI & Anr. 2022 SCC Online SC 825.

3. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant was issued under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) dated 12.10.2023 in connection with Case No. RC0292022A0019 dated 21.12.2022 registered with CBI, ACB, Gandhinagar under the provisions of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. According to the applicant, the issuance of such notice was sent to the office of the applicant, who was then under suspension and vide Office Memorandum of the office of the applicant, the same was supplied to the applicant. According to the applicant, issuance of notice under Section 41A of the Code is not meeting with the requirement of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Delhi High Court and the standing orders of Delhi Police and Gujarat Police. It is submitted that though the respondent is bound to be aware of the law laid down by the Apex Court, deliberately notice under Section 41A of the Code is issued with malafide intention and in prejudicial manner with an intention to deprive the applicant of his personal liberty.

4.1 It is submitted that issuing such notice to the applicant through his employer, is an attempt on the part of the respondent to malign the image of the applicant. Learned advocate submitted that the issuance of notice is after a period of ten months of registration of an FIR No. RC0292022A0019 dated 21.12.2022. The notice had asked the applicant to appear before the respondent on 19.10.2023 at his office at Gandhinagar. It is argued that the Apex Court in case of Satender Kumar (Supra) has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Amandeep Singh Johar vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. in W.P. (C) No. 7608 of 2017 and therefore, the respondent ought to have complied with such directions of issuing notice under Section 41A of the Code. It is submitted by learned advocate that notice which is required to be issued under Section 41A of Code has to be issued in a proforma which is part of the standing order issued by the Delhi Police in view of the directions of the Delhi High Court in Amandeep Singh Johar (Supra). It is submitted that in Para-15 of the Amandeep Singh Johar (Supra) judgment, a modal of Section 41A notice has been mentioned and therefore, the notice which is required to be issued ought to have been issued in this format alone, whereas the notice issued by this respondent to the applicant is certainly not as per the said format.

4.2 It is particularly submitted so that the format adopted by the standing order of the Delhi Police consists of acknowledgment and when there is no acknowledgment mentioned alongwith the notice issued by the respondent, the said amounts to willful disobedience by the respondent.

5. As against this, learned Counsel Mr. R.C. Kodekar appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation has submitted that there was no intention to commit breach of the orders of the Apex Court or any High Court and the respondent has no intention to commit contempt. The petitioner is involved in a serious offense and against whom, an FIR has already been registered being Case No. RC0292022A0003 dated 15.07.2022 towards demand and accepting bribe of Rs.10 Lakhs. From the residential premises of the petitioner, an unaccounted cash of Rs.20,75,000/- was recovered and in connection with thi