Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 601 (JHR)

Durga Charan Deogharia v. State Of Jharkhand

2001-08-27

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA

body2001
ORDER V.K. Gupta, C.J. 1. These proceedings initiated suo motu by the Court against the respondent No. 2. Sri Manoj Singh, the Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Ranchi-cum the Authorised Officer under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment Act, 1990) for committing contempt of this Court have arisen in the following manner :-- 2. On 3.7.2001, after admitting the writ petition being WP (Cr) No. 93 of 2001, this Court had passed an ad interim order directing release of the truck bearing Registration No. HR- 38C/1184 provisionally in favour of the writ petitioner, if the petitioner was its registered owner and if he furnished an undertaking to the effect that he would produce the vehicle in question if and when required by any officer or by any Court. It appears that despite this specific order passed and the categorical direction issued by this Court, the truck in question was not released by the respondent Sri Manoj Singh on being approached by the petitioner. This resulted in the petitioner in filing an Interlocutory Application No. 239 of 2001 alleging, inter alia, that the respondent No. 2 before whom the aforesaid Court order dated 3.7.2001 was produced had agreed to release the aforesaid truck, but by imposing a few conditions of his own. Along with the I.A. No. 239 of 2001, the petitioner filed a copy of the order dated 14.7.2001 passed by Sri Manoj Singh, respondent No. 2 which clearly suggests that after giving a reference to the aforesaid order dated 3.7.2001 passed by this Court he on his own incorporated certain additional terms as condition precedent for the release of the truck in favour of the petitioner. Although the text of the order passed by him is in Hindi, these additional terms and conditions when translated into English, read thus :-- "(1) The owner of the truck furnishes either a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) or security pass book pledged in favour of the authorised officer, to the aforesaid bank; (2) Security deposit should be from any bank located in the district headquarters; In the aforesaid condition, stipulation has also been made about the period of validity of the bank guarantee; (3) The owner of the truck shall furnish an indemnity bond of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs): (4) The security bonds of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs): (4) The security bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each of the persons having movable and immovable properties; (5) an affidavit containing the following stipulations : (i) The owner of the truck shall not sell the truck to any one, nor shall transfer its ownership; (ii) The value of the truck shall not in any manner be depreciated or decreased, nor there shall be an change in its colour or shade: (iii) The truck in question shall not used for any unauthorised or illegal purposes; (iv) Whenever it is demanded, the truck shall be produced before the authorised officer; (6) The original documents of the truck would be deposited in the office of the authorised officer and would remain deposited until the settlement of the dispute." 3. Admittedly, none of the aforesaid conditions imposed by the respondent No. 2 finds mention or place in this Courts order dated 2.7.2001. This Court had very clearly and categorically directed that the truck in question be released in favour of its registered owner just on one and the only condition that the petitioner (the registered owner) would furnish an undertaking that he would produce the truck in question if and when so demanded by any officer or by any Court. In other words, this Courts order was very amply clear and categorical that if the undertaking was furnished, the truck in question was to be released in favour of its registered owner. The matter was so simple and clear that no one had any option or discretion in the matter of release of the aforesaid truck. But notwithstanding the aforesaid order of this court, the respondent Shri Manoj Singh took upon himself the burden of imposing six aforesaid additional conditions, compliance of which was, of course, made a pre- requisite for the release of the truck in question. 4. Undoubtedly, the respondent Manoj Singh sat over the order of this court. There is no doubt at all that he patently violated and disobeyed the order passed by this Court on 3.7.2001 which was directed primarily at him. He is an instrumentality of the State and in this view of the matter it was his constitutional duty to obey this Courts order for release of the truck. There is no doubt at all that he patently violated and disobeyed the order passed by this Court on 3.7.2001 which was directed primarily at him. He is an instrumentality of the State and in this view of the matter it was his constitutional duty to obey this Courts order for release of the truck. He chose not to do so; he of his own created six more conditions and imposed them upon the petitioner as a prerequisite for the release of the truck. This was wholly impermissible. 5. The orders passed by the Courts of law are required to be implemented and obeyed in letter and spirit. They are not passed for any disobedience or any wilful violation. Article 215 of the Constitution of India empowers this court to punish an offender for committing contempt of this Court. 6. This is a clear case of contempt committed by the respondent No. 2, Sri Manoj Singh, who has filed his affidavit in answer to the show cause notice wherein he has admitted the aforesaid facts; he does not deny the facts at all. He has actually, in a manner of speaking, confessed to his guilt and has admitted that he committed this wrong act of disobeying this Courts order. He is, therefore, held guilty of having committed contempt of this Court. 7. The question that now arises for consideration is what punishment should be given to him. The tone and tenor of the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2 clearly and unequivocally suggests that he has penitently realised his mistake the moment it was brought to his notice. The language used in his affidavit suggests his sense and feeling of penitence and repentance for what he has done. Mr. B.B. Sinha, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent contemner has also repeatedly submitted that the respondent No. 2 has fully realised his mistake and feels repentant for the same. 8. The purpose of awarding sentence alter a finding of "guilty" in a matter relating to the contempt of the Court is not merely to punish the contemnary always, but to make him realise that he has acted in a manner which was not proper and amounted to contempt of this Court. 8. The purpose of awarding sentence alter a finding of "guilty" in a matter relating to the contempt of the Court is not merely to punish the contemnary always, but to make him realise that he has acted in a manner which was not proper and amounted to contempt of this Court. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the affidavit filed by the respondent Manoj Singh, I have no doubt in my mind that he has fully realised the mistake committed by him, though unwittingly, for which he is indeed penitent and has tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology to this Court. He has placed himself at the mercy of the court. Therefore, passing of any order awarding any harsh sentence upon the respondent No. 2 would not be in conformity with the requirements of justice. I, therefore, while holding respondent No. 2 guilty of having committed the contempt of this Court, sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred), which shall be deposited by him in the Govt. Treasury within one week from today. In case, he does not pay the fine imposed, he shall undergo simple sentence for one day. 9. This application stands disposed of. 10. Application disposed of.