Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 37 (MAN)

In Re: Suo Motu Contempt Case v. Siba Veimy

2022-03-24

SANJAY KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This suo motu contempt case was taken up by this Court on the basis of the letter dated 24.01.2022 of the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-II. Thereunder, the Ld. Magistrate forwarded the petition received from the petitioner/zimadar in Cril.Misc.(Z) Case No. 4 of 2022, proforma respondent No.2, against Siba Veimy, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Central Forest Division, Forest Department, Government of Manipur, respondent No.1 herein, to the Registrar General of this Court and requested that appropriate action be taken against the said officer for disregarding the Court's order. 2. In terms of Rule 5(1) of the Contempt of Court (Manipur High Court) Rules, 2019, in Appendix - 4 to the High Court of Manipur Rules, 2019, the Registrar General obtained orders for registration of a suo motu contempt case and listed the same for hearing. 3. Notice having been ordered, Mr. N. Suresh, learned counsel, entered appearance for the contemnor/respondent No.1, and Mr. H. Maipaksana, learned counsel, entered appearance for the zimadar/proforma respondent No.2. Heard arguments advanced by both the learned counsel. 4. This contempt case arises in the context of the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-II, in Cril.Misc.(Z) Case No. 4 of 2022, a petition under Section 457 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 451 Cr.P.C. filed by the zimadar for release of the seized Innova CRYSTA 2-4G vehicle bearing registration No. NL07H-6262. This vehicle was seized on 23.01.2020 on the allegation that it was involved in the smuggling of rhino horns. By the order dated 17.01.2022, the Ld. Magistrate directed release of the vehicle along with documents upon the zimadar furnishing a zima bond of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh) along with a surety for the same amount from a government employee and abiding by the other conditions mentioned in the zima bond. However, the complaint of the zimadar was that when he approached the concerned officer, viz., the contemnor herein, he did not comply with the zima order. The zimadar stated that he also served him with a legal notice on 18.01.2022 but to no avail. 5. Apart from forwarding the petition of the zimadar to the Registrar General of this Court, the Ld. The zimadar stated that he also served him with a legal notice on 18.01.2022 but to no avail. 5. Apart from forwarding the petition of the zimadar to the Registrar General of this Court, the Ld. Magistrate also issued Memo dated 21.01.2022 to the contemnor informing him that his act of deliberate disobedience was contemptuous in nature and that he would refer the matter to the High Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against him. 6. The contemnor filed an affidavit-in-opposition. Therein, he stated that he had submitted objection report dated 11.01.2022, in relation to the subject zima petition, before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, on 12.01.2022. He further stated that the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, passed an order on 12.01.2022 returning the petition for filing before the Court concerned and the petition was then taken up by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-II. According to the contemnor, the seized vehicle was re-seized by the Range Forest Officer, Sadar Range East, Government of Manipur, in connection with Offence Case No. 1 of 2022. He further claimed that when the release order dated 17.01.2022 was received by his office, his staff informed the counsel for the zimadar that the vehicle had been re-seized in connection with another offence. He stated that Cril. Revision Case No. 4 of 2022 was filed by him before the Ld. Sessions Judge, Imphal West, against the order dated 17.01.2022 passed in Cril. Misc. (Z) Case No. 4 of 2022 and that the same is pending. He concluded by stating that the seized vehicle ceased to be in his custody even before the passing of the release order. 7. The documents placed on record along with the affidavit-in-opposition bear out as follows: - the zima objection report dated 11.01.2022 of the contemnor was filed before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, on 12.01.2022, but on the very same date, i.e., 12.01.2022, the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, returned the zima petition for filing before the concerned Court. The documents placed on record along with the affidavit-in-opposition bear out as follows: - the zima objection report dated 11.01.2022 of the contemnor was filed before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, on 12.01.2022, but on the very same date, i.e., 12.01.2022, the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, returned the zima petition for filing before the concerned Court. The Memorandum of Re-seizure dated 13.01.2022 demonstrates that the re-seizure was effected at 02.00 p.m. on that day by the Range Forest Officer, Sadar Range East, Government of Manipur, outside the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Central Forest Division, and the subject Innova vehicle along with a rhino horn, 3 mobile handsets and two wallets were re-seized under Section 52 of the Indian Forest (Manipur Amendment Act, 2018) read with Rule 33 (a) of the Manipur Forest Rules, 1971. The letter dated 24.01.2022 addressed by the contemnor to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-II, indicates that he narrated these facts and explained his inability to release the vehicle. 8. Though Mr. H. Maipaksana, learned counsel, cited case law in relation to release of vehicles seized in connection with offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, this Court is presently not concerned with the issue as to whether the subject vehicle should have been released or kept under seizure. The only point that falls for consideration presently is whether the contemnor committed willful disobedience to the Court's order, warranting exercise of power under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 9. The subject zima petition was returned by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, on 12.01.2022 and the same was taken up for hearing by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-II, on 13.01.2022. Mr. H. Maipaksana, learned counsel, states that he himself appeared before the Ld. Magistrate and that the hearing concluded before 12:00 noon on that day and the order was reserved. The Memorandum of Re-seizure dated 13.01.2022 manifests that the re-seizure of the vehicle was effected at 02:00 p.m. on that day. As the Ld. Mr. H. Maipaksana, learned counsel, states that he himself appeared before the Ld. Magistrate and that the hearing concluded before 12:00 noon on that day and the order was reserved. The Memorandum of Re-seizure dated 13.01.2022 manifests that the re-seizure of the vehicle was effected at 02:00 p.m. on that day. As the Ld. Magistrate had only reserved the order upon the zima petition at that time, there is no reason to suspect the factum of re-seizure of the vehicle at 02:00 p.m. by the Range Forest Officer, Sadar Range East, Government of Manipur, outside the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Central Forest Division, in relation to another offence registered under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as applicable in the State of Manipur. The order was pronounced by the Ld. Magistrate on 17.01.2022. It would have proper for the contemnor to bring the factum of re-seizure of the vehicle to the notice of the Ld. Magistrate at the time of pronouncement of the order. However, his failure to do so does not negate the fact that re-seizure of the vehicle had already been effected in relation to another offence and the contemnor no longer had the custody of the vehicle to release it pursuant to the zima order. In such circumstances, this Court finds that there was no 'willful' disobedience to the order, warranting exercise of power under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the validity of the re-seizure or the issue of whether the seized vehicle should be retained under seizure or released. These aspects are left open for consideration on merits by the appropriate Court. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order shall be supplied online or through whatsapp to the learned counsel for the parties.