Friday, August 30, 2013

Prosecute Asst comm. of police for contempt of court. NOT actng, investgating wife &her attacks !! MADRAS HC



Prosecute Asst comm. of police for contempt of court. NOT actng, investgating wife &her attacks !! MADRAS HC 
    

NOTES
*********************
Husband says he is attacked by first (ex) wife and her son and some goonda elements
Husband files police complaints
Police NOT acting on complaint
husband gets and order from court, instructing policec to act and complete investigation
police further delay the case
husband shows photogrphs showing very senior police officers attending birthday party etc @ accused's place
Assistant Commissioner of police censured by court !!
Assistant Commissioner of police's apology at last moment NOT accepted 
    
  
    
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE 
******************************************************************
    

    

MADRAS HIGH COURT
    
M.Muruganandham vs Narasimhavarman on 7 July, 2011
    
DATED:07.07.2011
    
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN
    
Cont.P.No.720 of 2011
    
in
    
Crl.O.P.No.26138 of 2010
    
M.Muruganandham .... Petitioner
    
Vs.
    
Narasimhavarman
The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Adyar Range, Chennai-20 ..... Respondent
    
Prayer : This petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for not obeying the Order of this Court dated 01.12.2010 and made in Crl.O.P.No.26138 of 2010.
    
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sampath Kumar
    
For Respondent : Ms.M.F.Shabana
    
G.A.(Crl.Side)
    
O R D E R
    
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for not obeying the Order of this Court dated 01.12.2010 and made in Crl.O.P.No.26138 of 2010.
    
2. The excerpt of the facts, which is absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition is detailed as under:
    
2.1. The petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.26138 of 2010 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction to the Commissioner of the Police, Egmore, Chennai to transfer the investigation of the case in Crime No.324 of 2010 from the file of the Inspector of Police, J2 Adyar Police Station, Chennai to any other fair and competent investigation officer or agency. 2.2. In the above said petition, the petitioner had alleged that a crack was developed in his marital relationship with his first wife Megala as she was trying to do away with his life by poisoning him. He had also alleged that she was trying to attack him with dangerous weapon, with the aide of hooligans. 2.3. On account of this reason, he had obtained a customary divorce from her, after paying the compensation and maintenance as a whole by executing a moochalika before the Panchayathars and family elders. Thereafter, she has been living separately in Chidambaram along with her three children. 2.4. The petitioner had also alleged that on 21.02.2010, his elder son one Gopilingam came to his office in Adyar with rowdy elements and put him under threat and subsequently he had taken away his Toyota Innova Car bearing registration No.TN07 BB4060 (Silver colour) to Chidambaram. Hence, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police (L&O), J2 Adyar Police Station, Chennai, on 24.05.2010 and based on his complaint a case in Crime No.324 of 2010, under Sections 428, 379 and 506(ii) I.P.C., was registered on 26.05.2010. 2.5. He had also stated that he had approached the Inspector of Police, attached to J2 Adyar Police Station to seize the Toyota Innova Car from his first wife Megala. But, the above said Inspector of Police, had not taken preliminary steps to seize the car as he was having hand in glow with the petitioner's first wife. Even inspite of his representation either in person or through post, neither the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai, nor the Inspector of Police, attached to J2 Adyar Police Station had taken any effective steps to investigate the matter. Hence, he had chosen to knock at the door of this court by filing a petition in Crl.O.P.No.26138 of 2010 to transfer the investigation pertaining to the case in Crime No.324 of 2010 from the file of the Inspector of Police, J2 Adyar Police Station to any other competent investigation officer or agency. 2.6. After hearing both sides, this Court has passed an Order on 01.12.2010 directing the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai to depute the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Adyar Police Station, who is the respondent/contemnor herein to take up the case in Crime No.324 of 2010 for investigation. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai was also directed to transfer the case in Crime No.324 of 2010 from the file of the Inspector of Police, Adyar Chennai to the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Adyar, Chennai and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Adyar Police Station, the contemnor herein, was also directed to conduct the investigation in an efficacious and impartial manner and complete the same within a stipulated period of three weeks and if it seems necessary to seize the vehicle.
    
3. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that soon after passing of the Order on 01.12.2010, the petitioner had communicated the same to the respondent/contemnor on 07.01.2011. Even inspite of the receipt of a copy of the Order dated 01.12.2010, the contemnor did not bother to take up any action against the accused persons. He would submit further that under the influence of one Mr.Mahendran, presently Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, the respondent herein was very reluctant in complying with the Order of this Court. He would submit further that the vehicle was actually seized by the contemnor party and it was driven from the place of seizure to the distance of 100 Kms. However, on the clout of the above said Mahendran, the vehicle was taken back to Chidambaram and handed over to Megala, who is the first wife of the petitioner.
    
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit further that even after the issuance of contempt notice from this Court, the respondent, without taking any effective steps to investigate the matter, had the audacity to inform this Court that he had closed the complaint as mistake of fact only on the instruction given by the said Mahendran.
    
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also added that the respondent/contemnor had called the second wife of the petitioner Dr.Sushmitha Priya over phone and threatened her to ask her husband to withdraw the contempt petition filed against him, otherwise her husband, who is the petitioner herein would face the consequences. The very fact has been incorporated in the better affidavit filed by the petitioner.
    
6. When this contempt petition came up for hearing on 16.06.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner had represented that after service of notice to the contemnor, he himself had called the petitioner over phone and threatened with dire consequence. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) had submitted that he would instruct the contemnor to file an affidavit in respect of the steps so far taken by him in obedience to the order of this Court. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the respondent/contemnor was directed to file an affidavit explaining the reasons for not complying with the order of this Court within the stipulated time as directed. The petitioner was also directed to file a better affidavit.
    
7. The respondent/contemnor has filed his affidavit and thereby at the first instance he has tendered his unconditional apology for any wrong doing on his part and he has also submitted that there was neither wilful nor deliberate intention to disobey the Order of this Court.
    
8. Based on the above, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the complaint lodged by the petitioner was registered on 26.05.2010 in Crime No.324 of 2010 under Sections 428, 379 and 506(ii) I.P.C. on the file of the J2 Adyar Police Station by one Madasamy, Sub-Inspector of Police and thereafter the investigation was taken up by one Selvam, Inspector of Police, attached to J2 Police Station, Adyar.
    
9. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the Inspector of Police during the course of his investigation had examined certain witnesses and understood that the petitioner had married one Megala in the year 1986 and during their wedlock she delivered three children and after 17 years of their marriage, there arisen a problem and thereafter the petitioner had filed a petition in O.P.No.4143 of 2009 for the relief of divorce, before the Family Court.
    
10. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigating officer was also put understand that during the pendency of the divorce petition, the petitioner got married to one Dr.Sushmitha Priya sometime in the year 2006 and their marriage was also registered and that the petitioner is also having a child through her. He has also submitted that the petitioner has been living with his second wife at Kancheepuram, where he is having his own property.
    
11. The learned Public Prosecutor has also maintianed that the petitioner has till date parted with nearly one crore rupees, 250 soverigns of jewels and two cars to the first wife and he has also developed some family problem with his first wife and his son Gobilingam regarding the share of the property, which were earned by him.
    
12. The learned Public Prosecutor has also adverted to that the petitioner did not intend to give any money or property to the first wife and her children. After the completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, attached to J2 Adyar Police Station had filed a final report on 30.06.2010 before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, treating the case as mistake of fact.
    
13. The learned Public Prosecutor has also continued that the petitioner, who is the complainant had refused to receive the RC notice and therefore as required by law, after following due procedure, the same was stuck outside the house and the signatures of his neighbours were obtained. Further, the learned Public Prosecutor has also added that in pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 01.12.2010 and made in Crl.O.P.No.26138 of 2010, the respondent/contemnor had received the case diary and taken up further investigation. He then visited the place of occurrence and verified the case diary and he had also examined some of the witnesses.
    
14. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that as per the allegations levelled in the complaint by the petitioner, his Innova Car was taken away by his wife Megala and son Gobilingam and five others on 21.02.2010 at 01.30 hours without his knowledge. When the respondent had examined the witnesses, who were present near the alleged place of occurrence, they did not corroborate the complaint lodged by the petitioner and on detailed investigation it was revealed that there was no such occurrence on the particular date, time and place ie.on 21.02.2010 at midnight 01.30 hours.
    
15. The learned Public Prosecutor while advancing his arguments has also drawn the attention of this Court to the averments of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Family Court in which the petitioner had admitted that he himself had handed over the said Innova Car to his wife Megala for the use of his children. He therefore would submit that the candid admission made by the petitioner in his petition before the Family Court is entirely contrary to the averments of the complaint and therefore the section of law mentioned in the first information report under Section 379 I.P.C.is not made applicable.
    
16. The learned Public Prosecutor has also canvassed that as per the contention of the petitioner, the occurrence was taken place on 21.02.2010 at midnight 01.30 hours. But, he had chosen to file a complaint immediately and he had filed it only on 24.05.2010. In this connection, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that there was an abnormal delay ie.three months in lodging the complaint from the date of occurrence and after the completion of the investigation, the respondent had also filed a negative investigation report before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet on 23.05.2011 after referring the case as Mistake of Fact on the ground that there was no such occurrence took place during the date and time as stated by the petitioner.
    
17. The respondent/contemnor has also filed an additional affidavit on 30.06.2011, in which he has stated that the Order of this Court was received by him only on 22.12.2010 and on the next day he had directed the Inspector of Police, J2 Adyar Police Station to forward the CD file pertaining to the case in Crime No.324 of 2010 to his file. The learned counsel has also stated that due to various unforeseen programmes and schedules his subordinate, namely the Inspector of Police and himself were not able to focus attention on the day to day investigation. The respondent has also stated several reasons for his failure in compliance of the order of this Court, but those reasons are not convincing.
    
18. Based on the additional affidavit filed by the respondent/contemnor, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner wanted to make use the Police against the first wife by giving a false complaint to recover his Innova Car from his first wife, which was in fact given by him to his second wife and hence no prima facie case is made out to seize the vehicle, and for this reason, the respondent happened to file a negative investigation report before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate on 23.05.2011 after referring the case as Mistake of Fact. Further, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the respondent as well as his subordinates had conducted an enquiry in a fair, free and impartial manner in accordance with the law and all the mandatory provisions were strictly followed during the course of his investigation. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/  
    
19. In so far as this contempt petition is concerned this Court is of view that the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) are extraneous.
    
20. As discussed in para No.2.6, of this order that on 01.12.2010 this Court, while passing the order in Crl.O.P.No.2613 of 2010 has given the following directions;
    
(1) The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai was directed to transfer the case in Crime No.324 of 2010 from the file of the Inspector of Police, J-2 Adyar Police Station to the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Adyar (the contemnor herein).
    
(2) The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Adyar was also directed to conduct the investigation in an efficacious and impartial manner and complete the same within a period of three weeks and if it seems necessary, to seize the vehicle.
    
21. It is seen from paragraph No.9 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner that he had met the contemnor on 07.01.2011 and handed over the xerox copy of the order of this Court and explained the facts and circumstances under which the petition was filed. It is also seen from the same paragraph, that a legal notice dated 09.03.2011 was said to have been issued to the contemnor calling upon him to explain as to why he was unable to proceed with the investigation and also to explain as to why the vehicle was not seized and why the investigation was not completed within the stipulated period of three weeks as per the order of this Court dated 01.12.2010 and made in Crl.O.P.No.2613 of 2010. It is also seen that the notice was received by the contemnor on 11.03.2011, as seen in the postal acknowledgement. But even in spite of this the contemnor had failed to act in accordance with the direction of this Court.
    
22. In his affidavit at paragraph No.5, he has stated that as per the direction of this Court, he had received the case diary and took up further investigation and he had also visited the place of occurrence, verified the case diary, and examined some of the witnesses as detailed therein. From the averments of the affidavit filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent/contemnor, this Court is able to see that the respondent is well aware of the order of this Court dated 01.12.2010.
    
23. That on 21.06.2011, this Court in order to verify the correctness of the averments of the affidavit filed by the respondent/contemnor has directed the Registry of this Court to call for the entire records relating to the case in Crime No.324 of 2010 from the file of the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Accordingly the records were received by this Court. On verification of the records, this Court is able to find that the complainant has been dated as 24.05.2010. However, it seems to have been registered on 26.05.2010 at 02.00pm., on the file of J-2, Adyar Police Station in Crime No.324 of 2010 under Section 428, 279, 502(2) of IPC.
    
25. The FIR is found to have been reached the Metropolitan Court on 25.05.2010. It is also found that the first referred charge sheet has been dated as 30.06.2010. But it actually appears to have been filed before the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai on 21.06.2011 only. The counter foil of the notice of the referred charge sheet is also found to have been produced before the above said Court only on 21.06.2011, though it is dated back to 30.06.2010. The other records viz., the statements of the witnesses have also been sent along with the referred charge sheet only on 21.06.2011, though they are dated back to 26.05.2010.
    
26. The petition in Crl.O.P.No.26138 of 2010 is found to have been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court on 03.11.2010. It is also found that the petitioner had enclosed a copy of the representation to the Commissioner of Police along with the above said petition. The representation which is found to have been tagged along with the above said petition has been dated as 26.10.2010. The postal receipt has also been dated as 26.10.2010. It shows that the representation to the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai has been made as early as on 25.06.2010 to transfer the investigation of the case in Crime No,324 of 2010. But the petition in Crl.O.P.No.26138 of 2010 does not have any reference to show that the petitioner was served with the notice of referred charge sheet and that he had refused to receive the notice of referred charge sheet dated 30.06.2010. If at all the notice of the referred charge sheet dated 30.06.2010, was served on the petitioner, then definitely the petitioner would have stated this fact in his petition. As discussed earlier, though the referred charge sheet is dated as 30.06.2010, it appears to have been filed before the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai only on 21.06.2011.  http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/  
    
27. Under this circumstance this Court is of considered view that the Inspector of Police attached to J-2 Adyar Police Station has not filed the first referred charge sheet before the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai on 30.06.2010. If it is so the seal of the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet would have been affixed on the records on 30.06.2010 itself. But though the respondent/contemnor was given an opportunity to explain these circumstances, he has misrebly failed to explain this fact satisfactorily before this Court.
    
28. Secondly, on verification of the records, this Court is able to find that the respondent/contemnor is found to have filed the report on 04.05.2011 with regard to alteration of Section of Law. In his report he has stated that;
    
.."..The investigating Officer Thiru Selvam, Inspector of Police, J-2, Adyar Police Station investigated the case and filed a final report before the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court as per the merits and demerits of the case and the case was treated as mistake of fact on 30.06.2010. J-2, Adyar Police Station FRRC's Notice No.2/1010 in Serial No.0825017 was sent to the complainant. The final report was filed before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. As per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.O.P.No.26138 of 2010 dated 01.12.2010, the case is reopened for further reinvestigation on 03.05.2011..."..
    
29. According to the complaint and the statement of the complainant, the Sections 428, 379, 502(2) of IPC was altered to Sections 328, 379, 506(2) of IPC. Though this report has been dated as 04.05.2011, unfortunately, it appears to have reached the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court only on 21.06.2011.
    
30. Another report of the respondent/contemnor dated 03.05.2011, is also found to have been tagged along with the records in which it is stated that as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Crl.O.P.No.26138 of 2010 dated 01.12.2010, the case is reopened for further investigation on 03.05.2011. Though this report is also dated as 03.05.2011, it seems to have been reached the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court only on 21.06.2011.
    
31. It is significant to note here that the order of this Court was passed on 01.12.2011 in Crl.O.P.No.26138 of 2010 but as has been seen from the above report the respondent/contemnor had reopened the case for further investigation on 03.05.2011 only after 5 months.  http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/  
    
32. On further verification of the records it is found that from 03.05.2011 to 23.05.2011, certain witnesses were said to have been examined by the respondent/contemnor which includes the petitioner. On the same date i.e., on 23.05.2011, he had filed a final report referring the case as mistake of fact. The counter foil of the referred charge sheet notice dated 23.05.2011 has also been tagged along with the records. But it is surprise to note that all the records i.e., final report, referred charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police attached to J-2 Adyar Police Station along with the related records and the other referred charge sheet dated 25.05.2011 filed by the respondent/contemnor along with the connected records are found to have reached the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court only on 21.06.2011.
    
33. If these facts are true, the averments of the affidavit filed by the respondent/contemnor stating that the Inspector of Police Adyar Police Station had filed the final report referring the case as mistake of fact on 30.06.2010, cannot be true. Further the averments of his affidavit stating that he had filed another final report after referring the case as mistake of fact on 23.05.2011 also may not be correct. If the final reports 1 and 2, were filed before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court on 30.06.2010 and 23.05.2011 then the Court seal pertaining to the above referred dates viz., 30.06.2010 and 23.05.2010 would have been affixed. But all the records are found to borne the Court seal pertaining to 21.06.2011.
    
34. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent/contemnor was aware of the order of this Court dated 01.12.2010 and made in Crl.O.P.No.26138 of 2010. But even after the receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, the respondent/contemnor has not evinced any interest to regard the order of this Court instead it appears that he has deliberately flouted it for the reasons best known to him for which he has miserably failed to offer explanation to the satisfaction of this Court.
    
35. The Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has fairly admitted that there is delay in complying with the order of this Court. But he would submit that the reason for the delay is beyond the control of the contemnor. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when there is a specific order directing the respondent/contemnor to conduct the investigation in an efficacious and impartial manner and to complete the same within the stipulated period of three weeks, the question of reopening the case for further investigation would not arise. In his additional affidavit, the respondent/contemnor has stated that due to various unforeseen programmes and schedules he and his subordinate officials were not able to focus attention on the day today investigation. He has also submitted that from January 2011 onwards several festivals and programmes were organised by the Government and that since he being an Assistant Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai city had directed him to prepare schedule to monitor the situations and that on account of these reasons there was a delay in compliance of the order.
    
36. As adumbrated supra all those reasons assigned by the respondent/contemnor are extraneous and left unsupported. Viewing from any angle the conduct of the respondent/contemnor comes under the amplitude of criminal contempt.
    
37. It is also pertinent to note here that while advancing his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced certain photographs in which the respondent/contemnor is found along with the family members of the petitioner on an eve of a birthday celebration of a kid. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent/contemnor is having close association with the family members of the petitioner and on that pretext he was very reluctant in giving effect to the direction of this Court.
    
38. In paragraph No.3 of his affidavit the respondent/contemnor has tendered his unconditional apology.
    
39. In this connection this Court desires to place on record that apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of cringing coward. This dictum is held by the apex court in Mulkh Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1197; 1972 Cr LJ 754.
    
40. A person who offers a belated apology runs the risk that it may not be accepted for such an apology hardly shows the contriction which is the essence of purging of a contempt. However, a man may have courage of convictions and may stake his all on proving that he is not in contempt and may take the risk. This principle is laid down in Debabrata Bandopadhyay v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1969 SC 189(193): 1969 (1) SCR 304.
    
41. On coming to instant case on hand the respondent/contemnor was trying to justify his inaction for giving effect to the order of this Court dated 01.12.2010 by saying that there is neither wilful nor deliberate intention in disobeying the order of this court and at the same time he has also tendered unconditional apology saying that .."..however if the Court comes to the conclusion that contempt has been committed by him, I once again submit my unconditional apology before this Court..."..  http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/  
    
42. In this regard this Court would like to place on record that it is well settled and self evident that there cannot be both justification and an apology. The two things are incompatible. Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence, nor is it intended to operate as universal panacea, but it is intended to be evidence of real contriteness. This proposition has been laid down by the Apex Court in M.Y.Shareef v. Hon'ble Judges of the Nagpur High Court, AIR 1955 SC 19 (24); 1955 (1) SCR 757: 1955 Cr LJ 133.
    
43. On analysing the related facts and circumstances, this Court is of view that the action of the contemnor is deliberate and wilful as such the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent/contemnor cannot be accepted as it cannot be a .."..mantra..".. to pray exemption in as much as when there is no justification of such.
    
44. The respondent/contemnor is a responsible officer that too in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Police. He is having responsibility towards his department as well as towards the society. The rule of law is the foundation of the democratic society. The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the orders of the court were disobeyed with impunity by those who owe an obligation to the society to preserve the rule or law, not only would individual litigants suffer, the whole administration of justice would be brought into disrepute.
    
45. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, it is established that the conduct of the respondent/contemnor is amounting to criminal contempt of Court. In this connection this Court would say that contempt of court is disobedience to the Court, by acting in opposition to the authority, justice and dignity thereof. It signifies a wilful disregard or disobedience of the court's order, for it acts in disobedience to the authority. The act of disobedience of the respondent/contemnor is calculated to undermine public respect for the superior court and jeopardise the preservation of law and order
    
46. In so far as the instant case on hand is concerned this Court put faith in the professional honour of the Police machinery of the State and trusted them to carry out an expeditious investigation into the serious complaints of the petitioner. In this connection a question is arisen as to whether that trust was really justified. This Court does not see any reason to accept the explanations offered by the respondent/contemnor and therefore, comes to the conclusion that he is liable to be punished, under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as there is wilful and conscious violation of the order of this Court dated 01.12.2010. Since the respondent/contemnor has been officiating as Assistant Commissioner of Police, if any severe punishment either sentencing of imprisonment or imposing of fine, is awarded, then it will affect his future carrier. At the same time this Court must take utmost care to see that the temple of justice does not crack from outside.  http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/  
    
47. As rightly decided in Tarak Singh v. Jyoti Basu, (2005) 1 SCC 201: AIR 2005 SC 338 like any other organ of the State the judiciary is also manned by human beings, but the function of judiciary is distinctly different from other organs of the State, in the sense its function is divine. After every knock at all the doors fail, people approach the judiciary as the last resort. It is the only temple worshipped by every citizen of this nation, regardless of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. While awarding the sentence on the contemnor, the Court does so to uphold the majesty of law.
    
48. Keeping in view of the official status of the respondent/contemnor and other circumstances, this Court has come to the conclusion that he is liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act as he is found guilty of contempt.
    
49. In the result the respondent/contemnor is found guilty of contempt and hence, he is awarded with cesure. With the above observation, this contempt petition is disposed of.
    
07.07.2011
    
Index : Yes/No
    
Internet : Yes/No
    
krk
    
To
    
1. Narasimhavarman
The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Adyar Range, Chennai-20
    
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras  600 104.
    
T.MATHIVANAN, J.
    
Krk
    
Pre-Delivery Order in Cont.P.No.720 of 2011 in
    
Crl.O.P.No.26138 of 2010
    
07.07.2011
    




*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist