1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2009 1 IInd Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad ...Petitioner VERSUS 1 Nayansukh s/o Punamchand Gandhi 2 The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents ..... Shri S.G.Ladda, advocate for respondent/contemnor Shri S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. ..... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 12.10. 2009 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri S.G.Ladda, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri S.D.Kaldate, learned A.P.P. Perused the original record and proceedings. 2 2 This is a Reference made by the IInd Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Notice was issued to the respondent. Respondent - Nayansukh Punamchand Gandhi is present in the Court. He has filed affidavit in reply today. The contemnor had filed Criminal Case bearing S.C.C. No. 817 of 2008 and S.C.C. No. 818 of 2008 relating to the complaint under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The contemnor had engaged a lawyer for prosecuting his case. He had filed an application dated 20.6.2009 stating therein that the accused Rajendra Chandmal Mutha had informed him and his relatives that he is going to be acquitted as he had managed the Court. He had further stated that the husband of the Judge/Presiding Officer was his close friend. Therefore, he would be acquitted. The contemnor thereafter requested the Court not to take up the matter for the reasons stated above. The application was concluded stating that the application is filed without any intention of committing contempt of Court or to hurt the Court. 3 From the original record and proceedings, we find that after issuing the notice by the Court, a notice was issued to the contemnor dated 30.6.2009 as to why action for contempt be not 3 initiated against him, to which reply was filed by the contemnor on 18.7.2009. We have perused the reply. In the reply the contemnor has tendered apology to the Court for filing such an application and explained the circumstances, which resulted in filing the application. 4 Before this Court through affidavit in reply, the contemnor has tendered unconditional apology and submitted that he had no intention to lower the authority of the Presiding Officer and he sincerely unconditionally from bottom of his heart apologizes the Court, if knowingly or unknowingly he had committed any act which is contemptuous in nature. We have heard the contemnor himself. Learned counsel Shri Ladda submitted that the contemnor is an aged businessman and every precaution would be taken by the contemnor in future not to commit such act which may be contemptuous in nature. 5 After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel concerned, after going through the reply filed and on perusing the original record, we find that the contemnor ought to have taken abundant precaution before filing such an application, as he had engaged advocate and legal assistance was available to him, which he could have availed of. 4 6 From the entire fact situation of the case, we find that the intention of the contemnor was not to cause deliberate or willful contempt of Court. The contemnor, it seems, has realized his mistake. We are satisfied by the explanation tendered by the contemnor before the Trial Court and before this Court. Unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor is accepted by this Court and the Reference is closed and is disposed of. Notice stands discharged. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) dbm/crcp2,09