IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.4.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Contempt Petition No.1138 of 2004 First Leasing Company of India Ltd., rep. By its Vice President (Operation) Mr.Thomas Thaliath .. Petitioner vs. 1. Mr.Nandakumar Vice President (Risk Management) Citi Bank NA, Global Division at Chennai No.2, Club House Road, Mount Road Chennai-2 2. Mr.P.K.Shourrie, Senior Branch manager Syndicate Bank, East Patel Nagar Branch No.7, Rajendra Place, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110 002 3. Mr.B.C.Rai, Branch Manager Vijaya Bank, Dhariya Gunji Branch No.12/10, Ansari Road Dhariya Gunj, New Delhi (Contempt closed against the respondent 1 as per order of Court, dated 19.12.2007) (Contempt closed against the respondents 2 and 3 as per order of Court, dated 24.10.2007) 4. Mr.Anil Kumar, Chief Manager Allahabad Bank, Stephen House Branch No.4, BBD Bag (East) Stephen House, Kolkatta-700 001 .. Respondents The Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 10 & 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71, to punish the respondents for committing violation of orders of this Court, dated 25.8.2003, as modified by an order, dated 5.9.2003, in Crl.O.P.No.14407 of 2001. For petitioner : No Appearance For respondent : Mr.C.T.Mohan for R4 O R D E R This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for committing violation of the orders of this Court, dated 25.8.2003, as modified by an order, dated 5.9.2003, in Crl.O.P.No.14407 of 2001. 2. No appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 3. It is stated that the petitioner Company had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.6,22,97,500/- due to the fraudulent transactions of the accused, namely, Ajay Sharma and others. The accused persons have committed offence under Sections 406, 408, 477 (a), 109, 120(B), 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. A case has been registered by the Crime Branch in Crime No.323 of 1995 and the same is pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. The accused persons had misappropriated the funds on the basis of false and fabricated documents causing huge monetary loss to the petitioner Company. 4. It is stated that the Investigating Officer from the Central Crime Branch had issued written instructions to the respondents Banks to freeze the amounts of the accused persons. Since the respondent Banks had not complied with the request made by the Investigating Officer, under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner was constrained to file a Criminal O.P.No.14407 of 2001, praying for a direction to the respondents 10 to 22 to freeze the amounts of the accused persons and to convert the amounts therein into fixed deposit accounts till the disposal of the case in C.C.No.1950 of 1998, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. 5. It is further stated that by an order, dated 25.8.2003, this Court had directed the respondents 10 to 22 to freeze the amounts of the accused persons lying with them and had further directed the said respondents to convert the amounts into the fixed deposits in the name of the accused persons for a period of one year, renewable year by year. Since there was a mistake in arraying all the respondents, this Court by an order, dated 5.9.2003, had directed the correct order be issued. The orders passed by this Court had been communicated to the respondents through the petitioner's letter, dated 1.9.2003. Since the respondents had not complied with the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present contempt petition. 6. The contempt petition has been closed against the first respondent as per the order passed by this Court, on 19.12.2007. The contempt petition has been closed against the respondents 2 and 3 as per the order passed by this Court, on 24.10.2007. 7. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the Bank account of Anand Kumar Jain has been frozen in due compliance of the order passed by this Court, on 25.8.2003. It has also been stated that there is no account No.662 in the name of J.G. Finance Private Limited. However, the current account No.1545 in the name of J.G. Finance Private Limited, whose authorised signatory was Bhanwar Lal Jain, has been closed, on 18.10.2000. 8. It has been further stated that there is no account bearing No.971 in the name of B.L.G. Jain, as alleged in the petition. The fourth respondent is a law abiding citizen having highest regard for the orders of this Court. The allegation that the fourth respondent had committed contempt of Court is without any basis and does not merit serious consideration. However, the fourth respondent has tendered his unconditional apology, if this Court, for some reason, comes to the conclusion that the fourth respondent had committed contempt of Court by some act or omission. 9. It has also been stated that the petitioner has not given sufficient particulars against the fourth respondent, while alleging the violation of the orders passed by this Court by the fourth respondent. In such circumstances, the contempt petition may be dismissed as not maintainable. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent has placed before this Court, the statement of accounts relating to the account of Anand Kumar Jain, from 1.2.2003 upto 31.8.2007, to show that no transaction had taken place during that period. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent had also contended that the contempt petition is barred by limitation. He had relied on the decisions made in (1) 1995 A I H C 883 (COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. RURAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, KAITHAL) and (2) 1995 A I H C 1542 (MARGERETAMMA Vs. D.L.N.MURTHY) in support of his contentions to show that mere filing of contempt petition within one year from the impugned order is not sufficient. The bar of limitation, under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, would operate if the concerned Court had not considered the case for admission or for issuance of notice, under Section 17 of the Act, within a period of one year from the date of the order. 12. Since this Court is of the considered view that the contempt petition cannot be sustained on merits, the issue of limitation is only academic in nature. Therefore, the issue raised by the fourth respondent, with regard to the issue of limitation, does not call for a decision. 13. Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and on the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondent and in view of the records available before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to punish the fourth respondent for contempt of Court, as alleged by the petitioner in the contempt petition. It is clear from the records available that no transaction had taken place in respect of the accounts of the accused persons in the fourth respondent Bank, contrary to the orders passed by this Court. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient reasons to sustain the contempt petition. Hence, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs. 15.4.2008 lan To: 4. Mr.Anil Kumar, Chief Manager Allahabad Bank, Stephen House Branch No.4, BBD Bag (East) Stephen House, Kolkatta-700 001 M.JAICHANDREN J., lan Contempt Petition No.1138 of 2004 15.4.2008