IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 1235 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16567/2007 Dated 13/06/2007 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE W.P.C: ----------------- YESUDAS,ARUN BHAVAN,VAZHICHAL DESOM, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE W.P.C: ------------- N.SUGATHAN,AGED & FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN ADDRESS NOT KNOWN. NOW WORKING AS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.1235 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February 2008 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent has committed wilful contempt of the judgment dated 13/6/2007 in W.P.C.No.16567/2007. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “This writ petition is accordingly allowed. It is directed that investigation into crime No.97 of 2007 of Aryanad police station shall be entrusted by the third respondent to any senior police official of proven competence and capacity other than respondents 1 and 2 and not below the rank of a Dy.S.P. Such officer, who conducts the investigation, shall carefully examine the role of respondents 1 and 2 and if found necessary take appropriate action also. Orders to that effect shall be issued by the third respondent within one month with copy to the petitioner.” (emphasis applied) 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent has not complied with this direction. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions reports that the order was passed on 13/6/2007. Compliance must have been effected within a period of one month from the date of the said order, that is by 12/7/2007. But the third respondent had admittedly issued the order only on 14/8/2007. The third respondent submits that this inadequacy C.O.C.No.1235/07 2 crept in because the copy of the order was placed before him only on 02/08/2007. There is the further omission to supply copy to the petitioner also. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the delay from 12/7/2007 to 14/8/2007 was not wilful. Similarly omission to supply copy to the petitioner was also not wilful or deliberate. The copy of the order was received only on 2/8/2007 and it is in these circumstances that the delay occurred. The directions have been substantially complied with. The omission to comply with the direction literally may not invite any proceedings in contempt, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that it is not expedient in the interests of justice to initiate proceedings in contempt against the petitioner Though dissatisfied that the literal compliance of the directions has not been made, I am satisfied that no action in contempt need be taken against the third respondent. 6. This contempt of court case is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge C.O.C.No.1235/07 3 C.O.C.No.1235/07 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007