1 (SMCP.15-11) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO.15 OF 2011 High Court on its own Motion .... Appellant. V/s Dr. Leo Rebello .... Respondent. --- Dr. Leo Rebello, Respondent present in person. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for the State. --- CORAM: V. M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : 8th DECEMBER, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard. 2. A reference has been made by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in which he has alleged that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be initiated against the Respondent. A show cause notice was issued to the Respondent by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 27/07/2011. A reference has been made 2 (SMCP.15-11) about behaviour of the Respondent in Court on 13/06/2011 and also reference has been made to the incident which took place on 12/07/2011. Reply was given to the show cause notice by the Respondent dated 1/8/2011 and, thereafter, the order of reference was made by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 1/8/2011. 3. A preliminary objection is raised by the Respondent about maintainability of the Suo Motu Contempt Petition. It is submitted that Rule 1032(a) to (e) of the Contempt Rules of 1994 sets out how a Contempt Petition should be preferred. It is submitted that the said procedure has not been followed. Secondly, it is submitted that in view of Rule 1039(b), the subordinate court has to hold an inquiry by issuing show cause notice accompanied by copies of relevant documents and after hearing him the subordinate court has to pass a concise reasoned order of reference indicating the nature of contempt. It is submitted that no reasons have been assigned by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. It is then submitted that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has not supplied copies of various annexures when he was served with the show cause notice dated 27.07.2011 which is mandatory in view of Rule 1039(b). It is submitted that the annexures 8, 9 and 10 which are now annexed to the Contempt Petition were not sent alongwith the show cause notice. It is further submitted that Rule 1033(b) clearly reflects that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate should have been shown as 3 (SMCP.15-11) Petitioner and not the Bombay High Court. Further, it is submitted that the State of Maharashtra has not been shown as second respondent which is a necessary party in view of Rule 1033(c). It is submitted that the notice which was issued was not warranted. 4. There is some substance in the submissions made by the Respondent who is appearing in person. It appears that though a show cause notice has been issued, the said show cause notice is not accompanied with the annexures which are now annexed to this Petition. The said annexures ought to have been annexed to the show cause notice. Secondly, in view of Rules, a preliminary inquiry has to be held and an opportunity has to be given to the contemnor of being heard and, thereafter, a reasoned order has to be passed by the subordinate court. This procedure has not been followed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and, as such, the reference made by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate will have to be held to be not maintainable. Suo Motu Contempt Petition is disposed of. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (SMCP.15-11)