1 CP no.175 of 2009 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 22. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.175/2009 (V D DESHMUKH DIST. AND SESSION JUDGE AHMEDNAGAR V/S ANAND LAXMAN VADAR ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDT OF Central Jail, Aurangabad.) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. V.D.Salunke, Adv., for the respondent. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:2-12-2010 1. Heard Mr. V.D.Salunke, learned Counsel for the contemnor. The contemnor, being Superintendent of Jail, on the material day, at Sub Jail, Ahmednagar, did not accede to the directions of the Court to take six accused/suspects in custody, as was directed. The explanation that has been offered illustrate that one of the accused/suspect Shri Ramu Pawar was profusely bleeding on account of head injury and there was no immediate medical facility available at the Sub Jail and hence, the respondent felt, inviting question of life and 2 CP no.175 of 2009 death of said Ramu Pawar and, consequent thereupon, he directed the Constable concerned to take back said Ramu Pawar for facilitating appropriate orders from the Court and to allow other five suspects to be detained in the Sub Jail. However, according to the respondents, said Constable was furious on such suggestion and took all the six suspects and gave a report to suit his contentions. The respondent has, in addition to above explanation, has offered his unconditional apology. He illustrates that the sub jail was already overcrowded at the material time and accommodating six suspects with above disabled position was beyond comprehension and reach. 2. Though the order of the Court is not scrupulously followed by the respondent, making the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, to report the matter to the learned Principal District Judge, Nagar, who issued notice. There was no explanation in time 3 CP no.175 of 2009 from the respondent. The notices were not served to the respondent as he was in the meantime, transferred to Aurangabad. Accepting all these odds, though there is fault on the part of the respondents and since now he is being retired 63 years old, by issuing a censure, the Contempt petition is disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/175-09cp 4 CP no.175 of 2009