Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 298 (PAT)

Rajendra Prasad Vidyarthi v. State Of Bihar

2005-03-14

V.N.SINHA

body2005
Judgment 1. Contemnor respondent no. 5 is present in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 14.12.2004. 2. Heard Sri Mihir Kumar Jha, Senior Advocate for the contemnor and Sri A.P. Jittu, for the State of Bihar. 3. This contempt application has been filed for punishing the contemnor for his failure to comply the directions of this Court contained in order dated 1.10!2002, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9871 of 2002 whereunder this court had asked the contemnor-respondent no. 5 to take measurement of the work done by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of the order dated 1.10.2002. When the contemnor-respondent no. 5 in spite of receipt of a copy of the order dated 1.10.2002 did not take measurement, the present contempt application was filed alleging violation of the aforesaid order dated 1.10.2002. Notices were issued to the contemnor under orders dated 23.11.2004 whereafter the matter was considered in presence of contemnor Respondent no. 5 on 14.12.2004 and when this Court held the contemnor guilty of the violation of the orders dated 1.10.2002 and further asked his counsel as to why he be not awarded jail sentence then the contemnor started smiling shamelessly which really aggrieved the Court and the Court accordingly recorded that the contemnor deserved to be punished and called upon the contemnor to file his further show cause as to why he should not be awarded six months jail sentence for committing contempt of the lawful authority of this Court. In compliance of the orders dated 14.12.2004. the contemnor has filed his show cause which is kept at flag C Perusal of the said show cause indicates that in paragraph no.3 he has admitted the failure to comply the order dated 1.10.2002. In regard to the misdemeanour that the contemnor started smiling shamelessly during the hearing of the matter before this Court on 14.12.2004, it has been submitted in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the show cause that the contemnor being in serious state of mental stress for about eight days just smiled, when the Hon ble Judge observed during the hearing of the matter on 14.12.2004 that he may accept the apology. 4. 4. Contemnor has filed another show cause on 10.3.2005 whereunder he has stated that the order dated 1.10.2002 has now been complied with and the measurement in compliance of the orders of this Court has already been taken. 5. During hearing of this application, Sri Mihir Kumar Jha, appearing for the contemnor submitted that in view of the compliance of the orders of this Court may be belated the contempt proceeding should be closed and the contemnor should be let off with a warning. As regards the observation made in the order dated 14.12.2004 that contemnor started smiling shamelessly, learned counsel with reference to the statement made in paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 of the show cause further submitted that the depiction of the state of affairs which happened in Court room on 14.12.2004 as reflected in the order dated 14.12.2004 is not correct. In support of his submission, he further referred to Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and submitted that without framing the charge in the contempt matter, conviction and sentence under Act cannot be awarded to the contemnor and according to him in the present case no charge has ever been framed, as such, this Court if not inclined to accept the apology should first frame the charge and thereafter proceed further in the matter. He further submitted, with reference to a Division Bench Judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of M/s Hotel Alankar (P) Ltd. vs. S.P. Nanda, reported in 1992 Crl. L.J. 1788 that provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act are applicable to one who is convicted under the provisions of the Act and in this connection he referred to Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that formality of framing of charge against the contemnor was carried out when this Court passed order no. 2 dated 23.11.2004 and called upon the contemnor to file his personal affidavit informing this Court as to when measurements were taken by him in compliance of the order of this Court dated 1.10.2002 and thus the formality to frame and serve the charge is not required to be carried out against the contemnor. 2 dated 23.11.2004 and called upon the contemnor to file his personal affidavit informing this Court as to when measurements were taken by him in compliance of the order of this Court dated 1.10.2002 and thus the formality to frame and serve the charge is not required to be carried out against the contemnor. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the contemnor to let-off the contemnor by applying the provisions of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is concerned, I regret my inability to accept the submission as from the own admission of the contemnor, it appears that the orders of this Court was complied belatedly that too when this Court under orders dated 14,12.2004 observed that the contemnor deserves to be punished, as such, I am not inclined to allow the benefit of provisions of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act to contemnor-Respondent no. 5 as he himself has admitted the violation of the orders of this Court in his earlier show cause. I, accordingly, hold him guilty of charge of contempt of the lawful authority of this Court for his failure to comply with the orders of this Court dated 1.10.2002 within the time granted by this Court and award him the sentence of one month simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, which should be deposited within two months from today. This order shall, however, take its effect after one month from today. 7. This application is, accordingly, disposed of.