1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Contempt Petition No. 12 of 2010 Arising out of Criminal Writ Petition No. 116 of 2010 [Court on its own motion Vs. Anand Pandurang Magar & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Shyam Dewani, Adv., for the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 23rd December, 2010. 1. This Court has taken up the matter suo moto for action for criminal contempt. The manner in which the investigation was hushed up and an affidavit was hurriedly filed in this Court, that too with an explanation that the investigation was already completed, forced us to form said opinion. The officer, who had conducted the investigation, and his supervising officer were noticed for Criminal Contempt. 2. The officers, who were then present in the Court had expressed that the formal service of notice is not required, and preferred to appear and file reply. 2 3. We had prima facie found Mr. S.M. Paropkari, Deputy Commissioner of Police [Economic Offences Wing], Thane, responsible for contempt, having prima facie noticed that he had connived at the negligent conduct of the Police Sub-Inspector Mr. Anand Pandurang Magar, and did not take steps to disapprove what he had done. 4. Mr. Paropkari has filed affidavit, and has shown that way back in June, 2010, he had noticed discrepancies in the investigation, and directed the manner in which further investigation should be carried out. 5. In so far as Police Sub-Inspector Mr. Anand Pandurang Magar is concerned, he had filed affidavit. We had even disapproved the manner in which the reply was filed by Shri Anand Magar, the Investigating Officer. The language and tenor of reply was totally unsatisfactory. We have to record with grave dissatisfaction that the improper language of the affidavit was contributed by the incompetence of the officer filing the affidavit and lack of professionalism of the learned draftsman. 6. On his request, we have permitted Mr. Anand Pandurang Magar to withdraw the said affidavit, and he was allowed to file a fresh affidavit. 3 7. Mr. Magar has now filed a fresh affidavit. He has tendered unconditional and unqualified apology for his conduct. 8. While conduct of the supervising Officer, in particular Mr. Paropkari, was liable to be viewed as improper supervision, nevertheless his conduct would not fit into the strict definition of criminal contempt. We, therefore, drop the proceedings against Mr. Paropkari. 9. Purpose of contempt is to ensure and maintain majesty of the Courts, Law and Justice, and sanctions, such as punishment, are never the objectives. 10. We, therefore, do not propose to proceed any further, and we drop the proceedings. 11. We express that the slightest ordeal which Mr. Magar was required to undergo, would operate as a lesson, and would put him straight in his way of working. Judge Judge |Hedau|