JUDGMENT : MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. 1. This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 539/1986 with Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 592/1987 dated 18.12.1996 in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal with Ashok K. Johri vs. State of U.P. 2. The facts/allegations, as per the contempt petition, are that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent No. 1 on 01.04.2013 but fabricated the documents showing his arrest on 02.04.2013 and in the arrest memo, the respondents No. 2 & 3 had put their signatures as “motbir witness.” It is averred that during his police custody, he was subjected to physical violence as is apparent from his medical examination conducted on 06.04.2013 which reveal six bodily injuries. It is averred that his complaint against the violation of his fundamental rights as also the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of D.K. Basu (supra), came to be dismissed by the Assistant Police Commissioner, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West) vide order dated 04.02.2015 on the premise that on his complaint containing similar allegations, the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur Metropolitan has already taken cognizance under section 323 IPC against the erring respondents. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the contempt petition. He submitted that as per the memo of contempt petition, the contempt was allegedly committed in the first week of April, 2013; but, the contempt petition has been filed as late as on 27.07.2015 in which the contempt proceeding has not been initiated till date. He submits that in view of provisions of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity “the Act of 1971”), the contempt petition is barred by limitation. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt petition on this count alone. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submissions, relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. D.K. Mittal and Others, AIR 2000 SC 1136 as also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Rajasthan University and College Teachers Association vs. Shri Anil Vaish and Another, 2006 WLC (Raj.) U.C. 751. 4. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cause of action for filing of the contempt petition arose only when his complaint was dismissed by the Assistant Police Commissioner, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West) vide order dated 04.02.2015. With regard to initiation of contempt proceedings, he submits that since, he has filed the contempt petition within limitation, it should not be thrown away only because notice for initiation of contempt petition could not be issued within time by this Court. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of D.K. Basu (supra). Following directions issued therein have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to make out a case of contempt of court: “35. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures: 1. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 2. That the police personnel carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. 3. A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock- up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. 4. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 5. The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. 6. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 7. 4. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 5. The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. 6. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 7. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 8. The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a penal for all tehsils and districts as well.” 7. As per the averments in the memo of contempt petition, the petitioner was in police custody from 01.04.2013 and he was subjected to physical torture by the respondents before 06.04.2013. It is alleged that neither the arrest memo was prepared nor, his any friend or relative or any other person known to him or having interest in his welfare was informed nor, he was made aware of his right to have someone informed of his arrest and detention and he was subjected to physical torture during the police custody which all had happened in between 01.04.2013 to 06.04.2013 and the contempt petition has been filed on 27.07.2015. 8. A Division Bench of this Court has, in case of Rajasthan University and College Teachers Association (supra), held as under: “1. This contempt petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents for the alleged disobedience of orders of this Court in DBCWP No. 443/1987 and DBCWP No. 2027/1988. The directions therein were issued on 16.12.1987 and 19.12.1988 respectively. When attention of the counsel was drawn to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, he submitted that under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, there is no period of limitation and as such the petition cannot be said to be barred by limitation. 2. The directions therein were issued on 16.12.1987 and 19.12.1988 respectively. When attention of the counsel was drawn to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, he submitted that under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, there is no period of limitation and as such the petition cannot be said to be barred by limitation. 2. In Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 549 , a three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court has held that though the power to punish for contempt under Articles 129 & 215 of the Constitution of India cannot be abrogated or stultified by any provision of law, it must be exercised in consonance with validly enacted law and contempt of Courts Act being such a validly enacted legislation, the procedure provided therein including Section 20 of the Act prescribing period of limitation for initiating contempt proceeding do not abrogate or stultify the power, and the limitation provisions, therefore, should be followed while exercising such power. The decision is direct answer to the contention of the counsel. 3. The petition is thus dismissed as time barred. 4. The dismissal of the petition, it goes without saying, will not prevent the appellant from filing a writ petition in respect of its grievance in accordance with law.” 9. In the instant case, as already observed, alleging willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of D.K. Basu (supra) by the respondents in the first week of April, 2013, the contempt petition has been filed more than two years thereafter, i.e. on 27.07.2015. Therefore, it is hit by Section 20 of the Act of 1971. In view thereof, the aforesaid judgment applies to the instant case with full force and the preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1 deserves to be accepted. 10. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that cause of action for filing the contempt petition arose after dismissal of his compliant by the Assistant Police Commissioner, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West) vide order dated 04.02.2015, is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. 10. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that cause of action for filing the contempt petition arose after dismissal of his compliant by the Assistant Police Commissioner, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West) vide order dated 04.02.2015, is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. In the contempt petition, the contempt is alleged of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of D.K. Basu (supra) pertaining to rights of a detenue in police custody and by no stretch of imagination, rejection of petitioner’s complaint against violation of such directions can be reckoned as the starting point to count the period of limitation under Section 20 of the Act of 1971. 11. Accordingly, this contempt petition is dismissed being barred by limitation. 12. The pending application No. 1/2023 also stands disposed of.