-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION No. 1/2002 (Court's on its own motion -versus- Navinchandra Bhandari and others) *********** CORAM : K.J. ROHEE & B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATED : JUNE 27, 2008. Shri S.C.Mehadia, Advocate for Contemnor No.1. Shri V.P.Panpalia, Advocate for Contemnor Nos.2 &3. ORAL ORDER. 1. The matter is part heard and was adjourned for today on 10.06.2008 on the request of Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for contemnor no.1. Shri Mehadia, Advocate has today placed on record chronological list of events. 2. Contempt proceedings under section 15[2] of the Contempt of Courts Act have been initiated by this Court on its own morion against the present contemnor nos.1 to 3 for interpolating or tampering with the orders of this Court dated 03.05.2000. The said -2- order dated 03.05.2000 has been passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 176/2000 filed by the present contemnor no.1 seeking a direction to the State of Maharashtra to provide police protection to him. On 03.05.2000 this Court found that the applications for police protection dated 05.08.1998, 03.08.1999 and 29.11.1999 moved by the present contemnor no.1 were pending and the learned A.P.P. then representing State Government made a statement that those applications would be considered within a period of one month. 3. The Advocate representing the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.176/2000 is contemnor no.2 before this Court and his clerk is contemnor no.3. This Court in its order dated 03.05.2000 only recorded the above mentioned events and there was no direction of any nature whatsoever in that order. Surprisingly when a writ of the said order was served upon the respondents in the said Writ Petition, it was noticed that it contained a direction which read “every time the licence renewed immediately”. -3- 4. The contemnors after receipt of notice have appeared through their Advocates and have filed their respective affidavits. The contemnor no.2 – Advocate has stated that when the envelope containing writ of the order dated 03.05.2000 was handed over to the contemnor no.1 it was in sealed condition. The contemnor no.2 his clerk, has also stated that he received the hamdast in sealed condition and handed it over to the Advocate in the same condition. The contemnor no.1 who was petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.176/2000 has stated that he received the envelope in sealed condition and accordingly he handed over the same in sealed condition to the respondent in the said Criminal Writ Petition. He has further stated that there the envelope was opened and its xerox copy was obtained by the officials working in the C.P. Office and on xerox copy he was given acknowledgment. The office of the Police Commissioner has denied any such practice and all these facts are noticed by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 31.08.2000. 5. Before us Advocate Shri Mehadia for contemnor no.1 has argued that the subject matter of the Criminal Writ Petition was entirely different and there could not have been any direction in the -4- said writ petition to renew the licence immediately. He further states that though the contemnor no.1 has got a licence which is to be renewed by the Office of the Commissioner of Police Amravati, the renewal was due in the month of December, 2000 and as such there was no occasion for any such interpolation or tampering by him. Advocate Shri Mehadia further stated that in the present facts there is no evidence to show that it was contemnor no.1 who had done this interpolation. He further argues that in any case the alleged interpolation was noticed immediately and as such it was not taken advantage of any body. He has also stated that the contemnor has tendered his unconditional apology in the matter and the same should be accepted. 6. Advocate Shri Panpalia, for contemnor no.2 Advocate and his clerk – contemnor no.3, stated that the envelope received in sealed packet was handed over to the contemnor no.1 and as such they are not responsible at all in the matter. However, Advocate Shri Panpalia stated that if on any count this Court finds that the contemnor nos. 2 and 3 are involved in any way, they tender their unconditional apology. It is further pointed out that in May 2000 -5- itself when the contemnor no.2 learnt about the mischief played, he immediately has returned the papers back to the contemnor no.1. Advocate Shri Panpalia further points out that the contemnor no.3 is no longer associated with the court work and is working as agricultural labour in some village. 7. After hearing all the learned Counsel in presence of their respective clients, we find that renewal of licence was not the subject matter of Criminal Writ Petition No.176/2000. The order passed on 03.05.2000 infact could have finally disposed of the Writ Petition, but then the Division Bench for some reason kept the matter pending. The material on record does not establish that the contemnor no.2 – Advocate is involved in the matter in any way. The Advocate had authorised his clerk - contemnor no.3 to obtain hamdast. He has further stated that after receipt of hamdast in sealed condition it was handed over to contemnor no.1. Immediately after learning of the mischief the said Advocate has returned the papers back to the contemnor no.1. It is very difficult to hold that the contemnor no.2 has in any way forged or tampered with any orders of this Court. He is accordingly exonerated and -6- discharged from the present proceedings. 8. However, during hearing it transpired that the contemnor no.3 - clerk was not registered as per the provisions of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 with the High Court Registry or even at District Court at Amravati. In such circumstances, he ought not to have been authorized to receive the hamdast. In any case the contemnor no.2 authorised him and has also stated that the contemnor no.3 handed over back to him sealed envelope containing writ of High Court. In such circumstances, when the contemnor no.3 received the Hamdast in sealed envelope from the Registry of this Court, he could not have taken out xerox copy. There is nothing on record to show that the envelope was reopened after it was sealed by the Registry of this Court. However, considering the fact that the contemnor was an unauthorised person working as clerk with Advocate, we find that warning to him in the matter will meet the ends of justice. 9. The only person to be benefited in the entire matter was contemnor no.1/original petitioner. It is an admitted position that -7- his licence needed renewal, though after few months from the office of the Commissioner of Police. The statement made by the Advocate shows that when he learnt about the mischief and called contemnor no.1, contemnor no.1 could not furnish any proper explanation and hence he returned all his papers back. The statement of contemnor no.1 shows that after tendering envelope in the office of the Commissioner he demanded acknowledgment and officer concerned told him that no acknowledgment would be given. He has further stated that when he insisted for acknowledgment, the officer told him that he would inquire and therefore contemnor no.1 told him to complete the enquiry and till then he would sit in the licence branch. He has further stated that after 10-15 minutes when he returned from licence branch to dispatch branch, acknowledgment on xerox copy of the High Court order was given to him. He further stated that he did not remember who was sitting on the dispatch table and he would not be in a position to identify the person who were sitting in dispatch section on that date. In view of the specific statement made by the Personal Assistant to Commissioner and recorded by the Enquiry Officer that there was no such practice of giving acknowledgment on xerox copy and its corroboration by -8- Inward clerk, we find that the contemnor no.1 was the only person who could have taken any benefit of the said endorsement. However, subject matter of the order dated 03.05.2000 and the endorsement are inconsistent with each other and no prudent person could have construed it as a direction issued by the High Court. We are, therefore, giving benefit of doubt to contemnor nos. 1 and 3, with warning that if, in future any such incidence is repeated, serious cognizance thereof would be taken. 10. Criminal Contempt Petition No.1/2002 is disposed of with warning to contemnor nos.1 and 3. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.