Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 535 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Jiyut Singh

2014-04-30

J.N.SINGH

body2014
ORDER 1. Matter arises out of an order dated 9.2.2010 passed by this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No. 84 of 2010 directing the ACJM, Hilsa to release the wheat loaded on a tractor-trailor in favour of petitioners, which were seized by the Block Supply Officer, Ekangarsarai. The said release was subject to final decision in the confiscation proceeding. 2. ACJM, after receipt of the said order of this Court, transferred the case to the Court of SDJM, Hilsa and the SDJM, Hilsa, vide order dated 23.2.2010, accordingly directed the Officer-in-Charge of Hilsa Police Station to release the wheat in favour of petitioners. However, the Officer-in-charge did not release the wheat on the plea that the same was not seized by him and it was not in his custody. Hence, he sent a letter on 26.2.2010 to that effect to the SDJM as well as to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa. 3. When the wheat was not released, petitioners filed modification application bearing Cr. Misc. No. 26140 of 2010. In the said application Block Supply Officer filed his show-cause stating that, in view of orders of this Court in the Cr. Writ, he had sought further guidelines from the District Magistrate through the Sub Divisional Officer, vide his letter dated 2.3.2010 (Annexure-S/9). He further stated in his show-cause that finally, on the oral orders of Sub Divisional Officer to sell the wheat, he wrote a letter on 3.4.2010 (Annexure-S/10) to Awadhesh Kumar Patel, the Fare Price Shop Dealer, in whose custody the seized wheat was lying, directing him to sell the wheat. Thus, ultimately, when he did not get any guidelines, either from the Sub Divisional Officer or the District Magistrate, he got the wheat sold between the periods 8.4.2010 to 13.4.2010. 4. On 23.2.2011, this Court noticed the show-cause filed by the Block Supply Officer from which it appeared that he had sought for further guidelines from the Collector, Nalanda through the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa in view of the orders passed by this Court in Cr. Writ. Learned counsel for the Block Supply Officer had also submitted that inspite of the letter sent by him, he did not receive any guidelines from the Collector or the Sub Divisional Officer and therefore, he was compelled to order for sale of the wheat in view of earlier orders of the District Magistrate. Writ. Learned counsel for the Block Supply Officer had also submitted that inspite of the letter sent by him, he did not receive any guidelines from the Collector or the Sub Divisional Officer and therefore, he was compelled to order for sale of the wheat in view of earlier orders of the District Magistrate. It was also noticed by this Court that the Sub Divisional Officer had the knowledge of the orders of this Court well in time still he did not recall his earlier order dated 23.2.2010 and did not direct the Block Supply Officer to cancel the process of sale of the wheat. In the background of this fact, the Court directed for registration of a contempt proceeding against the Sub Divisional Officer, Hilsa, whereupon, Original Cr. Misc. No. 1 of 2011 was registered. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Hilsa filed his show-cause in the matter. In the light of the show-cause filed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the then Block Supply Officer. Ekangarsarai, the then Officer-in-Charge, Hilsa and one A.S.I. Arvind Kumar Singh were added as opposite parties and were noticed. They accordingly appeared and filed their show-causes. 6. From the pleadings of the show-causes filed by different contemnors opposite parties and documents produced by them on record, the chronology of events, after the order dated 9.2.2010 of this Court was received, in the light of which SDJM, Hilsa passed order dated 23.2.2010. 7. From the chronology of events, it appears that the Block Supply Officer had received the knowledge of order dated 9.2.2010 passed by this Court admittedly prior to 2.3.2010, on which date he sought guidelines from the higher authorities in the light of the order. It also appears that he did not receive any communication in writing from them to proceed with the sale of wheat. He has taken a defence that he was given oral orders by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which has been denied by the Sub-Divisional Officer, claiming that the letter of the mock Supply Officer to the Fair Price Dealer has been interpolated. It also appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa had got the knowledge of the orders of this Court at least through letter dated 26.2.2010 which was sent to him by the Officer-in-Charge and also through the letter of the Block Supply Officer dated 2.3.2010, by which he had sought for guidelines from the higher authorities. It also appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa had got the knowledge of the orders of this Court at least through letter dated 26.2.2010 which was sent to him by the Officer-in-Charge and also through the letter of the Block Supply Officer dated 2.3.2010, by which he had sought for guidelines from the higher authorities. Still the Sub Divisional Officer sat over the matter for more than a month and has now taken his defence in his handing over of charge of the post on 4.4.2010, upon his transfer. The Block Supply Officer, in his letter dated 3.4.2010 addressed to the dealer asking him to sell the wheat refers to some oral order of the Sub Divisional Officer. But in the copy of the same letter, produced by the Sub Divisional Officer as Annexure-G the line in respect of the said oral order of the Sub Divisional Officer is missing. This clearly shows that the copy of the said letter produced by the Block Supply Officer as Annexure-S/10 is interpolated. Thus, it is apparent that the Block Supply Officer has not only disobeyed and ignored the orders of this Court all, the excuse of not having received any guidelines from his higher authorities, but has also tried to mislead this Court by producing an interpolated document all record. The Sub Divisional Officer has pleaded all oath that the same Block Supply Officer, in another case, had complied a similar order of this Court, without waiting for any guidelines from his higher authorities. This pleading of the Sub Divisional Officer has not been denied by the Block Supply Officer. 8. Thus, it is clear that both, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, namely, Sri Jiyut Singh and the Block Supply Officer, Ekangarsarai, namely, Sri Siyaram Rajak are guilty of contempt. The Sub Divisional Officer, inspite of having full knowledge of the orders of this Court, sat over it exactly for one month and did not take any step whatsoever to ensure compliance of the orders of this Court. Hence, he is punished with an imprisonment for 48 hours and a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand). The Block Supply Officer also, knowing full well and having received the orders of this Court in his hand, except for writing letter dated 2.3.2010 to his superiors for guidelines, did not take any step whatsoever to ensure compliance of the orders of this Court. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand). The Block Supply Officer also, knowing full well and having received the orders of this Court in his hand, except for writing letter dated 2.3.2010 to his superiors for guidelines, did not take any step whatsoever to ensure compliance of the orders of this Court. Not only this, on the last day of the Sub Divisional Officer on the post, instead of taking any clear direction from the higher authorities, he directed the dealer to sell the wheat. Besides, with an attempt to mislead this Court, he produced a fabricated document showing that i.e. had issued direction to the dealer on the verbal orders of the Sub Divisional Officer, which clearly stands falsified by the photo copy of the same letter produced by the Sub Divisional Officer before this Court, which does not contain any such stipulation. Thus, the Block Supply Officer is not only guilty of contempt but also guilty of producing fabricated document in this Court, with a view to mislead this Court. Hence, he is punished with imprisonment for seven days and a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand). Besides, both the contemnors shall pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) each as a cost of this litigation to the petitioners from their own pocket. Cost shall be paid by them to petitioner No. 3 within one month from today, failing which the District Magistrate shall ensure that the amount is deducted from the salary of the contemnors of the next month and paid to the petitioners. The contemnors shall deposit the amount of fine in the account of High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna within two weeks from today and shall also surrender before the Registrar General of this Court within that very period to serve the sentence, failing which warrant of arrest shall be issued against them for their arrest to serve the sentence. 9. Both the applications are disposed of. Applications disposed of.