IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Or. Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Sri Jiyut Singh, The Then S.D.O., Hilsa 2. Sri Siyaram Rajak, the then Block Supply Officer, Ekangarsarai, Nalanda, presently posted as Block Supply Officer, Fatehpur, District- Gaya, C/o Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya, Sub Divisional Office, Gaya 3. Sri Awadhesh Kumar Rai, Sub Inspector of Police, the then Officer-in- Charge, Police Station, Hilsa, Nalanda, presently posted in Police Line, Patna, C/o Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna 4. Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, the then A.S.I. of Police, Police Station- Hilsa, District- Nalanda, presently Sub Inspector of Police and incharge Bhagwan Bigha O.P. (Out Post), District- Nalanda, C/o Superintendent of Police, Nalanda. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.26140 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Jaisar Prasad S/O Sri Ram Nandan Das, resident of village Manpur, P.S. Ekangarsarai, Distt. Nalanda 2. Janki Das @ Janki Prasad S/O Late Rodi Das 3. Anup Prasad S/O Janki Das @ Janki Prasad, both resident of village Gareriya Bigha, P.S. Ekangarsarai, Distt. Nalanda 4. Ramdhin Prasad S/O Ramphal Prasad, resident of village Manpur, P.S. Ekangarsarai, Distt. Nalanda 5. Binod Yadav S/O Ramprit Prasad, resident of Hilsa Bihari Road, P.S. Hilsa, District- Nalanda. 6. Anil Kumar S/O Late Durga Lal, resident of hilsa Bihari Road, P.S. Hilsa, Distt. Nalanda 7. Prahalad Kumar S/O Late Janwari Mochi, P.S. Faridpur, P.S. Ekangarsarai, Distt. Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Nalanda 3. The Block Supply Officer, Ekangarsarai. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In OR. CR. MISC No.1 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, A.C. to AAG 14 For Opposite Party no.1 : Mr. Kumar Mritunjay Narain Mr. Surendra Kumar For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha For Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha Patna High Court OR. CR. MISC No.1 of 2011 (17) dt.30-04-2014 2/9 (In Cr.Misc. No.26140 of 2010) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Anand For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha Mr. Kumar Mritunjay Narain Mr. Surendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH CAV ORDER 17 30-04-2014 Matter arises out of an order dated 9.2.2010 passed by this Court in Cr.W.J.C.No. 84 of 2010 directing the ACJM, Hilsa to release the wheat loaded on a tractor-trailor in favour of petitioners, which were seized by the Block Supply Officer, Ekangarsarai. The said release was subject to final decision in the confiscation proceeding. ACJM, after receipt of the said order of this Court, transferred the case to the court of SDJM, Hilsa and the SDJM, Hilsa, vide order dated 23.2.2010, accordingly directed the Officer-in-Charge of Hilsa Police Station to release the wheat in favour of petitioners. However, the Officer-in-charge did not release the wheat on the plea that the same was not seized by him and it was not in his custody. Hence, he sent a letter on 26.2.2010 to that effect to the S.D.J.M. as well as to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa. When the wheat was not released, Petitioners filed modification application bearing Cr. Misc. No.26140 of 2010. In the said application Block Supply Officer filed his show cause Patna High Court OR. CR. MISC No.1 of 2011 (17) dt.30-04-2014 3/9 stating that, in view of orders of this Court in the Cr.Writ, he had sought further guidelines from the District Magistrate through the Sub Divisional Officer, vide his letter dated 2.3.2010 (Annexure- S/9). He further stated in his show cause that finally, on the oral orders of Sub Divisional Officer to sell the wheat, he wrote a letter on 3.4.2010 (Annexure-S/10) to Awadhesh Kumar Patel, the Fare Price Shop Dealer, in whose custody the seized wheat was lying, directing him to sell the wheat. Thus, ultimately, when he did not get any guidelines, either from the Sub Divisional Officer or the District Magistrate, he got the wheat sold between the periods 8.4.2010 to 13.4.2010. On 23.2.2011, this Court noticed the show cause filed by the Block Supply Officer from which it appeared that he had sought for further guidelines from the Collector, Nalanda through the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa in view of the orders passed by this Court in Cr. Writ. Learned counsel for the Block Supply Officer had also submitted that, inspite of the letter sent by him, he did not receive any guidelines from the Collector or the Sub Divisional Officer and therefore, he was compelled to order for sale of the wheat in view of earlier orders of the District Magistrate. It was also noticed by this Court that the Sub Divisional Officer had the knowledge of the orders of this Court Patna High Court OR. CR. MISC No.1 of 2011 (17) dt.30-04-2014 4/9 well in time still he did not recall his earlier order dated 23.2.2010 and did not direct the Block Supply Officer to cancel the process of sale of the wheat. In the background of this fact, the Court directed for registration of a contempt proceeding against the Sub Divisional Officer, Hilsa, whereupon, Original Cr. Misc. No. 01 of 2011 was registered. The Sub Divisional Officer, Hilsa filed his show cause in the matter. In the light of the show cause filed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the then Block Supply Officer, Ekangarsarai, the then Officer-in-Charge, Hilsa and one A.S.I. Arvind Kumar Singh were added as opposite parties and were noticed. They accordingly appeared and filed their show causes. From the pleadings of the show causes filed by different contemnors-opposite parties and documents produced by them on record, the chronology of events, after the order dated 9.2.2010 of this Court was received, in the light of which S.D.J.M., Hilsa passed order dated 23.2.2010, appears as follows : Date Annexure Event 23.02.2010 Annexure-C (Show cause of S.D.O.) Annexure-S/6 (Show cause of Block Supply Officer) S.D.J.M., Hilsa directed the Officer-in-Charge of Hilsa Police Station to release wheat in favour of petitioners. Patna High Court OR. CR. MISC No.1 of 2011 (17) dt.30-04-2014 5/9 24.02.2010 A.S.I. of Police, Hilsa wrote letter to the S.D.J.M., Hilsa expressing his inability to release the wheat. 24.02.2010 Annexure-D (Show cause of S.D.O.) S.D.J.M. again wrote a letter to the Officer-in-Charge, Hilsa Police Station to release wheat and not to place lame excuses. 26.02.2010 Annexure-E (Show cause of S.D.O.) Annexure-S/7 (Show cause of Block Supply Officer) Annexure-C (Show cause of Officer-in- Charge) Annexure-C (Show cause of A.S.I.) Officer-in-Charge, Hilsa Police Station wrote a letter to the S.D.J.M. narrating entire facts of passing of order by this Court and also his direction for release of wheat. He also stated that there was an earlier order of the District Magistrate to sell the wheat. This letter was also sent to the Sub- Divisional Officer, Hilsa. 02.03.2010 Annexure-S/9 (Show cause of Block Supply Officer) Block Supply Officer wrote letter no.48 to the District Magistrate, Nalanda and Sub Divisional Officer, Hilsa seeking guidelines with respect to release of seized wheat in view of order dated 9.1.2010 of District Magistrate and order dated 9.2.2010 of the High Court in Cr.W.J.C. 84 of 2010. 03.04.2010 Annexure-F (Show cause of S.D.O.) Annexure-S/10 (show cause of Block Supply Officer) The Block Supply Officer, Ekangarsarai wrote a letter to Awadhesh Kumar Patel, a Fare Price Shop Dealer, in whose custody the seized wheat was lying, directing him to sell the wheat in compliance of oral order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. 03.04.2010 Annexure-G (Show cause of S.D.O.) Another letter of Block Supply Officer to Awadhesh Kumar Patel directing him to sell the wheat but without any mention of oral order of S.D.O. The S.D.O. claims that the letter annexed as Annexure-F Patna High Court OR. CR. MISC No.1 of 2011 (17) dt.30-04-2014 6/9 (and Annexure-S/10 with the show cause of Block Supply Officer) was in fact manipulated by the Block Supply Officer later on in order to save himself from contempt. The S.D.O. had not given any oral order for sale of wheat. 04.04.2010 Annexure-H (Show cause of S.D.O.) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, on transfer, handed over the charge in order to join in the office of the District Magistrate, Nalanda. 08.04.2010 to 13.04.2010 In terms of order of Block Supply Officer dated 3.4.2010, wheat was sold by the dealer. 04.12.2013 Annexure-J (Supplementary Show cause of S.D.O.) Final orders were passed in Confiscation Case No.3 of 2010. From the chronology of events, it appears that the Block Supply Officer had received the knowledge of order dated 9.2.2010 passed by this Court admittedly prior to 2.3.2010, on which date he sought guidelines from the higher authorities in the light of the order. It also appears that he did not receive any communication in writing from them to proceed with the sale of wheat. He has taken a defence that he was given oral orders by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which has been denied by the Sub- Divisional Officer, claiming that the letter of the Block Supply Officer to the Fair Price Dealer has been interpolated. It also appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa had got the knowledge of the orders of this Court at least through letter dated 26.2.2010 which was sent to him by the Officer-in-Charge and Patna High Court OR. CR. MISC No.1 of 2011 (17) dt.30-04-2014 7/9 also through the letter of the Block Supply Officer dated 2.3.2010, by which he had sought for guidelines from the higher authorities. Still the Sub Divisional Officer sat over the matter for more than a month and has now taken his defence in his handing over of charge of the post on 4.4.2010, upon his transfer. The Block Supply Officer, in his letter dated 3.4.2010 addressed to the dealer asking him to sell the wheat refers to some oral order of the Sub Divisional Officer. But in the copy of the same letter, produced by the Sub Divisional Officer as Annexure-G, the line in respect of the said oral order of the Sub Divisional Officer is missing. This clearly shows that the copy of the said letter produced by the Block Supply Officer as Annexure-S/10 is interpolated. Thus, it is apparent that the Block Supply Officer has not only disobeyed and ignored the orders of this Court on the excuse of not having received any guidelines from his higher authorities, but has also tried to mislead this Court by producing an interpolated document on record. The Sub Divisional Officer has pleaded on oath that the same Block Supply Officer, in another case, had complied a similar order of this Court, without waiting for any guidelines from his higher authorities. This pleading of the Sub Divisional Officer has not been denied by the Block Supply Officer. Patna High Court OR. CR. MISC No.1 of 2011 (17) dt.30-04-2014 8/9 Thus, it is clear that both, the Sub Divisional Officer, Hilsa, namely, Sri Jiyut Singh and the Block Supply Officer, Ekangarsarai, namely, Sri Siyaram Rajak are guilty of contempt. The Sub Divisional Officer, inspite of having full knowledge of the orders of this Court, sat over it exactly for one month and did not take any step whatsoever to ensure compliance of the orders of this Court. Hence, he is punished with an imprisonment for 48 hours and a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand). The Block Supply Officer also, knowing full well and having received the orders of this Court in his hand, except for writing letter dated 2.3.2010 to his superiors for guidelines, did not take any step whatsoever to ensure compliance of the orders of this Court. Not only this, on the last day of the Sub Divisional Officer on the post, instead of taking any clear direction from the higher authorities, he directed the dealer to sell the wheat. Besides, with an attempt to mislead this Court, he produced a fabricated document showing that he had issued direction to the dealer on the verbal orders of the Sub Divisional Officer, which clearly stands falsified by the photo copy of the same letter produced by the Sub Divisional Officer before this Court, which does not contain any such stipulation. Thus, the Block Supply Officer is not only guilty of contempt but also guilty of producing Patna High Court OR. CR. MISC No.1 of 2011 (17) dt.30-04-2014 9/9 fabricated document in this Court with a view to mislead this Court. Hence, he is punished with imprisonment for seven days and a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand). Besides, both the contemnors shall pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) each as a cost of this litigation to the petitioners from their own pocket. Cost shall be paid by them to petitioner no.3 within one month from today, failing which the District Magistrate shall ensure that the amount is deducted from the salary of the contemnors of the next month and paid to the petitioners. The contemnors shall deposit the amount of fine in the account of High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna within two weeks from today and shall also surrender before the Registrar General of this Court within that very period to serve the sentence, failing which warrant of arrest shall be issued against them for their arrest to serve the sentence. Both the applications are disposed of. Pradeep/- (Jayanandan Singh, J)