Judgment : 1. This is a petition for initiating contempt proceedings under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with ORDER XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975 against the respondent No. 1-Tuncay Alankus for flouting the orders of this Court dated 4.9.2006 read with order dated 14.12.2006 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 925-926/2006. It is further prayed in the petition that the contemnor be directed to restore the amount in the Swiss Bank, i.e., PICTET & CIE Bank, Geneva. 2. By order dated 14.12.2006, the interim order dated 4.9.2006 was made absolute to the effect that the respondent No.1-contemnor is restrained from withdrawing the amount from his accounts in a Swiss Bank till the decision of the matter. 3. Full facts have mentioned in the contempt petition and hence we are not repeating the same here. 4. It is alleged in the contempt petition that despite the orders of this Court dated 4.9.2006 and 14.12.2006 restraining respondent No. 1-contemnor from withdrawing any sums from his accounts in a Swiss Bank till the decision in the matter, he has withdrawn huge amounts running into millions of dollars from the Swiss Bank, i.e. Pictet & Cie Bank, Geneva. In this behalf Mr. Gourab Banerji, learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a letter dated 09.03.2009 from the Pictet & Cie Bankers, Geneva wherein it is mentioned that the amounts have been withdrawn from the said bank. 5. From a perusal of the record, we are satisfied that these allegations are correct and that the respondent No.1-contemnor has willfully flouted the orders dated 4.9.2006 and 14.12.2006 of this Court and that he has no respect or regard for this Court at all. The respondent No.1-contemnor thinks that he can take this Court for a ride by making frivolous and false excuses for disobeying our orders. We make it clear that this Court will not tolerate any such move of the respondent No.1-contemnor. 6. For the allegations made in the contempt petition, a notice had been issued to the contemnor. In the notice it was specifically mentioned that the charge against him is that he has violated the order of this Court dated 4.9.2006. In fact, the respondent No. 1contemnor has filed his reply thereto. 6. For the allegations made in the contempt petition, a notice had been issued to the contemnor. In the notice it was specifically mentioned that the charge against him is that he has violated the order of this Court dated 4.9.2006. In fact, the respondent No. 1contemnor has filed his reply thereto. However, from a perusal of the reply filed by the contemnor it is clear that he has not denied the allegation of the petitioner that he has withdrawn money by flouting the order of this Court dated 4.9.2006. 7. From the above discussion, we are satisfied that there is sufficient material on the record to suggest that contemnor-respondent No. 1 has committed contempt of Court. Therefore, we hold the contemnor guilty of Contempt of Court. 8. In fact, even today, the contemnor is not prepared to return the money which he has withdrawn from his accounts in the Swiss Bank. We are informed that respondent No. 1-contemnor has withdrawn about 11 million dollars. Thus, there is no option but to punish him for Contempt of Court. 9. List this matter on Monday, the 12th April, 2010 for passing the sentence on the contemnor. We make it clear that if by the said date, the contemnor deposits the amounts withdrawn by him, we may consider recalling our order passed today.