VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REFERENCE No. 2 OF 2008 (against Contempt) Anand Manohar Samant Petitioner Vs. Sachin Ashok Umbarkar & Ors. Respondents Mrs. P. H. Kantharia, APP for the State. Mr. Jitendra Pathade i/b Mr. R. V. Govilkar for the Respondendent Nos. 1 to 3, 4, 5 to 10. Mr. A. J. Ranavare, for the respondent No.4. Mr. S. C. Halli, for the Respondent No.11. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, & A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J. DATE : AUGUST 14, 2008. PC :- 1. This matter has been referred by a subordinate Judge for initiation of contempt proceeding against the respondent Nos. 1 to 10, who have filed their affidavits on 7th August, 2008 seeking apology of this Court. The respondent No.11 has filed his affidavit today. This contempt action was sought to be initiated because of an incident, which happened in the Court of subordinate Judge on 28th May, 2007 when allegedly respondents brought a dead body in the Court - 2 - of law and submitted representation to the Judge for getting justice. According to the learned Judge, this act of respondents of offering a dead body to his Court was contemptious, because it lowered the authority and dignity of the Court. He also submitted that the people who accompanied dead body had created chaos in the Court, obstructing the Court working. 2. The Court constable who was present in the Court informed the police and the police officers and the officials, who came in the Court and the information report was lodged, regarding the murder of a person, whose dead body was brought to the Court. The learned Judge asked the respondents to take away the dead body but one of the respondents insisted, saying unless his advocate comes, the dead body cannot be taken outside. The respondent Nos. 1 to 10 have apoligised and given reasons for taking the dead body in the Court. 3. The respondent No.11 has submitted that he was not accompanying the dead body. He is advocate by profession and has been practicing in the criminal side since last 14 years. He appeared urgently before the Judge when he was summonded by the Judge, when the incident happened and asked for his assistance to - 3 - control the situation and see that the dead body was taken away from the Court. This is reflected by the order of reference as well, in which the learned Judge has stated that the respondent No.11 had informed the Judge that he had no idea and he had not asked anybody to bring dead body in the Court but the crowd accompanying the dead body had insisted that this gentleman should come to the Court. The dead body was taken outside the Court after intervention of respondent No.11. 4. Even otherwise we do not feel that there has been any attempt by the respondents to commit any contempt of the Court. They had neither come to the Court to scandalize it, nor to harass it, nor to create any obstruction in the court working. They prayed for justice and they thought that by taking the dead body before the Court they would get justice. This was in a way to show faith in the judiciary which mean that these people believed that they would get justice from the Court, and if such people are slapped for their deeds in contempt, it will be counter blow to their act. 5. The Courts cannot be too sensetive that they do not entertain even an inconvenience of seeing a - 4 - dead body in the Court of law. In such a situation the judges need to behave in more matured way than ordinary men and also consider the feelings or plight of those, who were nearer to the dead person. 6. For these reasons, we do not find that any case is made out for the contempt. Contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]