IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1630 of 2010 ARVIND KUMAR, SON OF SRI RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF GARDANIBAGH ROAD NO. 01, P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. MR. A.K.CHAUHAN,FATHER’S NAME UNKNOWN TO PETITIONER, PR. SECRETARY, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SUCHANA BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. MR. ANIL SINHA, FATHER’S NAME UNKNOWN TO PETITIONER, ADDLL. DIRECTOR GENERAL, VIGILANCE INVESTIGATING BUREAU, PATNA. 3. MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, FATHER’S NAME UNKNOWN TO PETITIONER, OFFICER I/C, VIGILANCE P.S., PATNA CUM TRAP TEAM I/C OF SPL. CASE NO. 07 OF 2001. 4. MR. S.S. THAKUR, FATHER’S NAME UNKNOWN TO PETITIONER, INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF SPL. CASE NO. 07 OF 2001 IN VIGULANCE P.S., PATNA. 5. DR. PARVEZ AKHTAR, FATHER’S NAME UNKNOWN TO PETITIONER, INVESTIGATING OFFICER OF SPL. CASE NO. 07 OF 2001 IN VIGILANCE P.S. PATNA. 6. SHRI AJIT KR. SINHA, FATHER’S NAME UNKNOWN TO PETITIONER, A.D.J. CUM SPECIAL JUDGE, VIGILANCE (I), PATNA. ----------- 2 29.4.2010 This contempt application has been filed by Sri Arvind Kumar against the order dated 18.2.2010 making allegations against all the departmental heads of the Vigilance Department as well as the Special Judge by name which is not permissible. As far as this contempt application is concerned, I find that it is not maintainable. This Court had heard Cr. Misc. No. 5394 of 2010 in which a prayer was made that certain documents were not supplied to Sri Arvind Kumar. It has been stated in the order sheet that the case diary, F.S.L. repot along with the receipt of currency notes which was seized and deposited in the ‘Malkhana’ was supplied to the petitioner. At that stage, he had apprehended that if he is not given the F.S.L. report, he would not be able to examine the witnesses. This Court had specifically stated that the Vigilance Department should supply all the exhibits which he intends to rely upon. Also specific direction was given to the petitioner that he should receive them without any objections. Again, the petitioner has filed this completely frivolous 2 non maintainable application alleging contempt of the Courts order and submits that the post trap memorandum has not been supplied to him. If the petitioner continues to stall the trial on grounds which was non-est, this Court will have to take a very strict view regarding the conduct of Sri Arvind Kumar. I find that the allegations made in this contempt application are absolutely frivolous, the petitioner is trying to create a defence by filing these applications. The Trial Court should not allow the duplicating of the petitions. Already an order had been passed with respect to the supply of the documents again, it appears that a petition has been filed by the petitioner. It would be advisable to Sri Arvind Kumar to engage proper counsel to conduct his trial in the Court below as that was facilitate the trial of the case. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)