JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 539/1986 with Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 592/1987 dated 18.12.1996 in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal with Ashok K. Johri vs. State of U.P.

2. The facts/allegations, as per the contempt petition, are that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent No. 1 on 01.04.2013 but fabricated the documents showing his arrest on 02.04.2013 and in the arrest memo, the respondents No. 2 & 3 had put their signatures as “motbir witness.” It is averred that during his police custody, he was subjected to physical violence as is apparent from his medical examination conducted on 06.04.2013 which reveal six bodily injuries. It is averred that his complaint against the violation of his fundamental rights as also the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of D.K. Basu (supra), came to be dismissed by the Assistant Police Commissioner, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West) vide order dated 04.02.2015 on the premise that on his complaint containing similar allegations, the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur Metropolitan has already taken cognizance under section 323 IPC against the erring respondents.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the contempt petition. He submitted that as per the memo of contempt petition, the contempt was allegedly committed in the first week of April, 2013; but, the contempt petition has been filed as late as on 27.07.2015 in which the contempt proceeding has not been initiated till date. He submits that in view of provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity “the Act of 1971”), the contempt petition is barred by limitation. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt petition on this count alone. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submissions, relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. D.K. Mittal and Others, AIR 2000 SC 1136 as also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Rajasthan University and College Teachers Association vs. Shri Anil Vaish and Another, 2006 WLC (Raj.) U.C. 751.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cause of action for filing of the contempt petition arose only when his complaint was dismissed by the Assistant Police Commissioner, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West) vide order dated 04.02.2015. With regard to initiation of contempt proceedings, he submits that since, he has filed the contempt petition within limitation, it should not be thrown away only because notice for initiation of contempt petition could not be issued within time by this Court. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of D.K. Basu (supra). Following directions issued therein have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to make out a case of contempt of court:

“35. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures:

1. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

2. That the police personnel carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.

3. A person who has been arrested or deta