1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 58/2010 IN Criminal Application No. 1727/2007 (D) (Purushottam Premji Patel VERSUS S.B. Pande, Police Inspector, P.S. Sadar, Nagpur) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. Neeta Jog, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.M. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 30, 2010 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act for willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order issued by this Court by the judgment dated 27th of January, 2010 in Criminal Application No.1727/2007. It is necessary to note that the petitioner had filed Criminal Application No.1727/2007 for release of the wooden logs seized under the seizure memo. The petitioner had sought following relief by prayer clause (a). Prayer Clause (a) –“issue directions to the non- applicant to release the wooden logs seized under Seizure memo dated 24.01.2006 to the applicant as the wooden logs seized under the seizure memo is 2 not connected with any of the offence under Crime No.315 of 2005 registered by the Sadar Police Station, Nagpur with costs throughout.” The High Court had allowed the criminal application by the judgment dated 27th January, 2010 and had made the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Prayer clause (a) is already quoted hereinabove. It is the case of the petitioner in the contempt petition that though the logs were to be released by the respondent as they were not connected with any crime, the respondents have released the logs in favour of the petitioner on a supratnama. It is also stated in the contempt petition that they had seized three T.P. Registers as per the seizure memo and it was necessary for the respondents to have released those three T.P. Registers also. It is averred in the contempt petition that in the letter dated 19th of February, 2010 issued by the respondent, it was stated that three T.P. and three Stock Registers as per the seizure memo are not with them and they are with C.I.D. It is, thus, the case of the petitioner that the respondents are deliberately flouting the orders passed by this Court in not releasing the three T.P. & Stock Registers to the petitioners. 3 Mrs. Jog, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated the aforesaid averments in the contempt petition and has further stated that the respondents have also not paid costs to the petitioner though the criminal application filed by the petitioner was allowed with costs throughout in view of the fact that rule was made ab solute in terms of prayer clause (a). The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submitted by relying on the affidavit-in-reply that though the word 'supratnama' is used in the document, it is not a supratnama in the true sense of the term as the logs were not released to the petitioner on a condition that they may be brought back to the authorities as and when required. The learned Assistant Government Pleader referred to certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in that regard. It is then pointed out on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner had merely sought the release of the wooden logs seized under the seizure memo and prayer clause (a) did not seek the release of any T.P. Register or Stock Register as claimed by the petitioner in this contempt petition. So also, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the submission as regards to the non-payment of costs is advanced by the petitioner only 4 today and this fact is not averred in the petition and the costs are also not quantified. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the directions issued by this Court by the judgment dated 27th of January, 2010, it appears that the Court has by allowing the criminal application No.1727/2007, directed the respondents to release the wooden logs seized under the seizure memo. The petitioner had not prayed for the release of Stock Registers or T.P. Registers as claimed by the petitioner in this contempt petition. Since there is no prayer for release of T.P. or Stock Registers in the criminal application, it cannot be said that the respondents are guilty of contempt of Court for not releasing the T.P. Registers or Stock Registers as this Court had not directed the respondents to release them by making the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). It is not the case of the petitioner in the contempt petition that the respondent has not released the logs to the petitioner which were seized under the seizure memo dated 24th of January, 2006 but, the petitioner is merely aggrieved by the fact that the respondent has released the logs on supratnama. It is rightly brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the word 5 'supratnama' is merely used in the document at Page 21 of and the respondent has not mentioned in the document at Page 21 that the petitioner would be required to again bring the logs or surrender the logs to the respondent at a subsequent point of time if required by the respondent. In fact, there is an acknowledgment at Page 21-A which shows that the logs were released in favour of the petitioner. Since there is no direction by this Court in the criminal application to release the T.P. Registers and the Stock Registers, the petitioner cannot make a grievance against the respondents in that regard and also cannot seek action against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner cannot seek a direction to the respondent to forthwith release the three T.P. Registers and the other three registers as prayed by Prayer Clause (ii) of the contempt petition as the said prayer ought to have been made in the Criminal Application No.1727/2007. It is also not the case of the petitioner in the petition that the respondent has not paid the costs to the petitioner. Since that was not the grievance of the petitioner in the contempt petition, the respondent cannot be held guilty of deliberately flouting or disobeying the orders of this Court dated 27.01.2007 in Criminal Application No.1727/2007. 6 In the result, the contempt proceedings against the respondent are hereby dropped. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE