Misc. Criminal Case No. 478 of 2002. Case: State of C.G. Vs S.K. Thakur. Chhattisgarh High Court
|Case Number:||Misc. Criminal Case No. 478 of 2002|
|Party Name:||State of C.G. Vs S.K. Thakur|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Rahul Tamaskar, Panel Lawyer and For Respondents: B.D. Guru, Advocate|
|Judges:||Pritinker Diwaker, Actg. C.J. and Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.|
|Issue:||Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 14, 15, 15(2), 2, 2(c)|
|Judgement Date:||March 09, 2017|
|Court:||Chhattisgarh High Court|
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This is reference made under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara to this Court for taking action for contempt against the respondent herein.
2. Brief facts of the reference are as under:--
3. On 7-9-2001, order for interim custody was passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara granting interim custody of the recovered vehicle in a crime registered by the police station concerned to Jamuna Prasad and actual memo was issued in favour of Jamuna Prasad on 22-9-2001 to the concerned police station/Station House Officer, Bemetara, to handover the possession of the vehicle to Jamuna Prasad. In the opinion of the Station House Officer, the vehicle was further required to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. The District Prosecution Officer made an application on 23-9-2001 for extension of time for delivery of vehicle to the said owner of the vehicle as directed by the court. Such an application was made before the Judicial Magistrate Second Class (on remand duty) of that court and the same was forwarded by the said Magistrate to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara for orders on that application. Ultimately, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, on 1-10-2001 rejected the application for extension of time for delivery of said vehicle and upon rejection, the vehicle was ultimately handed-over to Jamuna Prasad, the vehicle owner, on 3-10-2001. In the meanwhile, on 24-9-2001, Jamuna Prasad filed an application that the vehicle is not being handed-over to him as directed by the court on 7-9-2001/22-9-2001 and in which notice for non-compliance of the court order was issued to the respondent herein and ultimately, finding non-compliance of the order dated 7-9-2001/22-9-2001, by order dated 9-10-2001, the matter has been sent to this Court for taking cognizance of the criminal contempt, under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for punishing the respondent/contemnor.
4. This Court issued notices to the respondent/contemnor and he is now represented through Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate.
5. Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/contemnor, submits that such non-compliance is not deliberate as the respondent had already moved an application before the court on 23-9-2001 and when the application was rejected, the vehicle was ultimately handed-over to Jamuna Prasad on 3-10-2001 and as such, there is no willful disobedience of the order of the court and no such contempt is made. However, Mr. Guru submits that the respondent tenders his unconditional apology which may be accepted, as the action is not deliberate and he had already moved an application before the competent court for extension of time to comply the order.
6. I have heard Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, as well as Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. In order to decide the reference...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL