1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 150/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2127/2010 (Sukrut Nirman Charitabgle Trust through its President - Vs. -Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Commissioner of Police, Amravati and another ) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri M.P.Khajanchi, counsel for petitioner Shri Nitin Sambre Govt. Plader for respondents ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 3rd DECEMBER, 2010. 1] The question involved in the contempt petition is about misuse of the order dated 3.5.2010, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2127/2010. 2] Such of the facts as are necessary, are stated below. On 12.5.2010 at about 9.30 p.m. the police authorities had accosted a truck bearing Registration No. CG-07-2915. During search of 2 the said truck, about 11 tons of Cow Beef was found. Therefore, in presence of one Mr. Gajanan Hurpude, who claims to be the President of the petitioner trust and some other persons, the police authorities intercepted the said truck, prepared spot panchnama and obtained signatures of the said persons as Panchas thereon. The petitioner claims that the police authorities assured to lodge F.I.R., in respect of offence under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act against the concerned persons and that they will seize the truck and would investigate the matter. When the petitioner along with other persons went to the concerned Police Station to enquire about the registration of the offence, they were informed that the said truck was released without preparing the seizure panchnama and without registering the offence. 3] The communication dated 24.5.2010 of the Police Inspector, Special Branch, Amravati City, addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Administration) Amravati, is placed on record as 3 Annexure P-1, in which it has been stated that in view of the order dated 3.5.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2127/2010, the offence has not been registered. In the affidavit dated 9th September, 2010, filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Amravati Division, Amravati, it has been stated that the then Investigating Officer, in view of the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2127/2010, dated 3.5.2010, has not taken any entry in the Station Diary and has not prepared any document under the impression that the police authorities are prevented from taking coercive action against the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2127/2010 and hence the truck was released under such bonafide impression. 4] It is also the stand taken in the affidavit dated 7.9.2010 filed by the Commissioner of Police, Amravati, that in view of the default committed by the then P.S.O. Shri Rathod for not taking any entry in the Station Diary and for not preparing appropriate documents before releasing the truck, 4 the answering respondent has issued show cause notice to the then P.S.O. Shri Rathod, for the defaults committed by him. A copy of the show cause notice is also annexed. 5] Apparently, the order dated 3rd May, 2010, passed in Writ Petition No. 2127/2010 no where prohibits the police authorities from registering any offence under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act or under any of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. This Court has passed an order dated 3.5.2010, in a petition filed by one Mushtaq Ahmed Querashi S/o. Abdul Rahman Quereshi, who is said to be the partner of the owner of the truck bearing No. CG-07-2915, in the business of meat. The direction granted by this Court for not taking coercive action against the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2127/2010 was in respect of the activities of slaughtering of animals, carried out by the said petitioner in his private Slaughter House at Plot No. 27, Jamil Colony, Amravati. This order, therefore, could not have been used for releasing 5 the truck and not registering the offence against the owner of the truck, who was carrying about 11 tons of Cow Beef. 6] Shri Sambre, the learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents has raised several objections including that the contempt petitioners were not the petitioners/party in Writ Petition No. 2127/2010 and had no locus standi to complain about willful breach or disobedience of the order. According to him, the action complained of does not fall in any of the items of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. When a specific question was put to him as to whether it is not a misuse of the order dated 3.5.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 2127/2010, by the police authorities to release the truck and not to register the offence, he submits, it does not amount to contempt of court. 7] In my opinion judicial orders are to be properly understood keeping in view the implications. The orders of Court cannot be 6 understood to provide licence to relieve the offenders. Even negligence and carelessness in understanding implications may amount to disobedience and attract liability of contempt. The power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective legal system. It can be exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice. The matter, therefore, requires consideration by this Court. 8] Shri Sambre, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the action has already been taken against Shri Rathod, the concerned person in the matter for not making any entry in the Station Diary and not preparing the appropriate documents before releasing the truck. If the respondent was of the view that the then P.S.O. Shri Rathod has committed some default in not making an entry in the Station Diary and not preparing appropriate documents, then surely it is a case where the offence ought to have been registered and investigated into. 7 9] Shri Sambre, the learned Government Pleader has expressed that if the offence is registered then the complaint may be made that the respondents have committed the contempt of Court, as the action would be in contravention of the order dated 3.5.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2127/2010. In my view, there is no basis for such apprehension. The order passed by this Court is very clear and does not suffer from any ambiguity. As pointed out above, the orders of the Court cannot be understood to provide licence to the police authorities to overlook the offences and relieve the offenders. The order passed by this Court did not prevent the police authorities to register offence against petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2127/2010, if he has committed an offence. At any rate, order was in respect of carrying out activities or slaughtering at private place and it had nothing to do with transportation of Cow Beef. The question is whether the concerned officer has misused the order for not taking the entry in the Station Diary or preparing the appropriate documents and registering the offence. Shri 8 Sambre, the learned Government Pleader submits that the respondent Commissioner of Police has provided him instructions that the offence in question shall be registered and investigation of it shall be carried to its logical end, at an earliest. Similarly, it is also assured that the action initiated against Shri Rathod shall also be carried to its logical end. 10] In view of aforesaid assurance, I do not find any reason to proceed with the present contempt petition. The proceedings are, therefore, dropped. JUDGE Rvjalit