1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 11 OF 2008 DIST.: NAGPUR Mr. K.P. Kshirsagar, C.J.J.D., & J.M.F.C., ] Court No. 4, Nagpur ] ...Petitioner Versus 1. Arjun S/o. Kundalik Mudgal, P.S.O., ] Police Station Tahsil, Nagpur ] 2. The State of Maharashtra ] ...Respondents. Mr. Shirish Gupte with Mr. Yogesh Nayyar for the Contemner Mrs. A.S. Pai, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 24-9-2008 DATE OF PRONOUNCING: 22-10-2008 JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.):- 1. This contempt was initiated on a reference made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. 2. The Magistrate had passed an order on 10th January, 2008, directing the respondent to release certain property. The person in whose favour the property had to be released had executed an 2 Indemnity Bond in the Court, and had also been given an order by the Court for release of the property to be served on the respondent; but the respondent refused to comply with the order of the Court. 3. Thereafter, the person in whose favour the order was passed approached the respondent on 24th and 25th January, 2008, but the respondent did not obey the order of the Court. When a notice was sent to him by the learned Magistrate to explain non-compliance of the order, he defended his action on the ground that there were discrepancies in the order of the Court in respect of the seized property, and he intended to prefer a revision against the said order of the Court. 4. In this Court also, it was tried to be explained that a larger quantity had ben seized, and a lesser quantity was directed to be released. There was a discrepancy, and the respondent filed a revision. Even if the respondent had found any discrepancy, he could have approached the Court for clarification or modification of the order. Instead, he chose not to obey the order, waited till the revision was dismissed, and then complied with the order. 5. Even the language used by the respondent in his revision was something which would show the mind-set of the respondent, and the 3 arrogance to show to the Court that the order would not be implemented. When the Magistrate asked him to explain him why the order was not implemented, he replied (page No.2):- “It is most humbly submitted that there is the question of law and facts. The non-applicant is going to file a Revision application, therefore wait for some days to obtain the articles, as there is no use of the articles. It is only custody given to the applicant. There is a specific order of the Hon' ble Court that the applicant shall not cause any damage, dispose of either by way of sale or pledge and produce the said property in the Court whenever required by the Court. Then why the applicant is so hasty to obtain the material as he cannot use the same. The building seized by the police is in the name of Shiv Shakti, and the applicant is not the owner of Shiv Shakti and such type of shop is not in existence and therefore the non-applicant intended to go in Revision.” 6. It is the most reprehensible attitude of the police officer. Magistrates work with the assistance of the police, and if the police officers are so arrogant that they do not comply with the orders of the Court and even try to sit in appal over orders of the Magistrates, then the whole system of criminal justice would come to a standstill. 7. We are convinced that this is a case where contempt has been committed, but even the affidavits filed before this Court at the initial stage are in the same tone as they were before the trial Court. It 4 appears that later on, some wisdom has dawned on the respondent, as he filed an affidavit on 24th September, 2008, tendering an unqualified apology. Though we feel that this is a case in which apology, at this stage, should not be accepted, yet we accept the apology, because the Courts are very slow in punishing people for contempt of Court. But we make it clear that in case in future, the respondent is held guilty of contempt by this Court, the present case should be taken as an incriminating circumstance while awarding punishment to the respondent. 8. With these observations, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.