1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2009 High Court on its own motion Versus Mrs. Chitkala Zutshi & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. S.R. Borulkar, Public Prosecutor, with Mrs. P.H. Kantharia and Mr. Milind Kamble, Additional Public Prosecutors, for the State Mr. S.A. Sawant for the Contemner Mr. J.C. Satpute for Union of India. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2009 P.C.:- This Contempt Petition had been initiated on the orders of the Court dated 10th December, 2008. This order refers to an order passed earlier on 22nd November, 2006, by which respondents No. 1 to 4, i.e., State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Department of Home, the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Western Region, Bandra (West), were directed to file in the Court Action Taken Report against respondent No. 10 within a period of one year from the date of the order. The Court noted that since the Action Taken 2 Report had not been filed within the time contemplated by Order dated 22nd November, 2006, therefore, show-cause notices were issued. Although the Additional Public Prosecutor present in the Court submitted that show-cause notice had been issued to respondent No. 10, but the Court found, prima facie, that that was not in compliance of the earlier order of the Court. 2. In response to the show-cause notice, counter-affidavit came to be filed. It is not disputed that the order of the Court dated 22nd November, 2006 has been violated, inasmuch as no compliance report was filed before 21st November, 2007, and, as a matter of fact, action has been taken against respondent No. 10 only on 17th December, 2008. That means, the order was complied with almost after two years of the order of this Court dated 22nd November, 2006. 3. It is submitted in the counter-affidavit that the inquiry was conducted as per the direction of the Court against respondent No. 10, as there were allegations against him that he had not conducted an inquiry in the matter and report was not given for a period of 10 months. Therefore, an Inquiry Officer was appointed by order dated 17th April, 3 2007, and a report was given by the Inquiry Officer on 28th December, 2007. This report was not acceptable to the respondents. Therefore, they did not accept this report, and found it appropriate to appoint another officer for conducting the inquiry. 4. In the first report, the Inquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that respondent No.10 had “behaved in an undisciplined and irresponsible manner” and, therefore, he had recommended appropriate punishment, but the Deputy Commissioner of Police found, by his order dated 8th April, 2008, that the Inquiry Officer had not examined all the witnesses, who were necessary for such an inquiry. Therefore, it was recommended by him that another Inquiry Officer be appointed, who may be of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. 5. Even after this order of 8th April, 2008, it took the respondents another one month to appoint another Inquiry Officer, who appears to have been appointed on 5th May, 2008, as is evident from his report. He gave his report on 18th August, 2008. He gave findings, and thereafter, came to the following conclusions:- “1. There is considerable delay of 10 months in registration of the offence even after recording the statement of Shri. Ravindra 4 Lalchand Soni on 10.10.2005 whereas the case was only registered on 14.07.2006. 2. The version of the complainant regarding theft of articles worth Rs.2 lacs was not taken seriously. No sincere efforts were made to arrest the accused person and recover the stolen property. 3. Since the accused were not arrested in time they got an opportunity to file applications for Anticipatory bail and since the I.O. provided this opportunity, the accused could avail Anticipatory Bail.” 6. After this report, it took the respondents another two months to give a show-cause notice to respondent No. 10, and thereafter, ultimately, on 17th December, 2008, passed an order withholding three increments. In view of the report of the Inquiry Officer, it can be debated whether the punishment given to the officer was adequate or grossly disproportionate; and it was an attempt to let off respondent No.10 with a light punishment, and fulfil the requirement of the order of this Court. That may have to be dealt with in an appropriate case if anybody feels aggrieved of such an order. 7. We are, however, not happy with the attitude shown throughout by the respondents in this case as well as in the contempt 5 proceedings. When the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, filed an affidavit, she was of the view that she had nothing to do with the matter, as it was the Commissioner of Police who was supposed to take action in terms of the rules. She stated, in paragraph 6 of her affidavit dated 10th February, 2009, as follows:- “I say that respondent No.10 Investigation Officer was of the rank of Inspector of Police and therefore the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai was competent to take action against him. The State Government was not directly involved for holding the enquiry against the respondent No.10.” 8. We do not understand the logic of this observation made by a very senior officer, who is of the rank of an Additional Chief Secretary. The Commissioner of Police is included in the Government, and if this Court had imposed a duty on the Home Secretary to see that the order of this Court was implemented, was it not necessary for her to keep herself informed about the progress of the case, and ensure that the order of this Court was complied with within the time specified by this Court? 9. Similarly, neither the Commissioner of Police nor the 6 Additional Commissioner has given any explanation whatsoever for the delay caused at different stages of the inquiry. These affidavits leave no room for doubt in our mind that the respondents were not at all interested in seeing that respondent No.10 should be punished for his conduct, which had been proved to be unbecoming by their own officers, but because of pendency of the proceedings in this Court and because of initiation of the contempt proceedings, now, he has been punished, and in our view, perhaps, reluctantly. However, this Court has always been very restrained in punishing the persons, who are in contempt, and the order of this Court has now been complied with. 10. Therefore, a lenient view is taken in the matter, and the proceedings of contempt are dropped. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J.