1 CRI. CP NO.1/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1 of 2009
(With Crimial Application Nos.4066/2011,
1912/2011 and 3146/2011)
Shri V.S.Deshpande, 5th
Joint Civil Judge,
(S.D.), Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2.
Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin, Age 42 yrs., Occ.
Fitter;
3. Sau.Rahematbee Sayyad Amin, Age 60 yrs. Occ.
Household;
4. Sau.Shaikh Julekha alias Nasim, age 45 yrs.
Occ. Household;
5. Sayyad Khalik Sayyad Amin, Age 40 yrs. Occ.
Fitter;
6. Sayyad Ainul Sayyad Amin, Age 37 yrs. Occ.
Plumber.
Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 r/o Nangre Galli, House No.
7344, Ahmednagar.
No.4 r/o Zendi Gate, Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri V.N.Damle, Adv.( appointed) for petitioner.
Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent No.1 State.
Mr.J.H.Deshmukh, Adv., for respondent no.2.
Mr.M.D.Shinde, Adv., for respondent nos. 2 to 6.
...
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:49:13 :::
2 CRI. CP NO.1/2009
CORAM: A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ.
***
Date of reserving the
judgment: 29/9/2011
Date of pronouncing
judgment: 5/10/2011
***
JUDGMENT : (Per A.H.Joshi, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Heard by Consent.
2. This Contempt proceedings are initiated
on the Reference made to this Court by 5th Joint
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar.
3. In the proceedings for grant of
succession certificate, present contemnors have
made a statement on record that the Hon’ble High
Court had demanded succession certificate in the
appeal pending before High Court.
The contemnors were not able to prove
that any such order was passed.
4. The trial Court, by passing order below
Exh.1, called the explanation from the applicants
therein as to why action should not be taken
against them for making such false and
irresponsible statement.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:49:13 :::
3 CRI. CP NO.1/2009
5. The applicants therein filed written
explanation in which objectionable matter was
incorporated. The statements, which were
objectionable, are quoted in the reference.
6. This Court had taken cognizance and
ordered that notice of show cause be issued
against the contemnors.
7. The contemnors remained present,
intermittently. Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin, one
amongst them, was absent inspite of execution of
bond and even failed to apply for exemption of
personal attendance. Therefore, non bailable
warrant of arrest was issued. However, he
appeared on the returnable date. Thereafter, the
contemnor Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin was committed
to jail.
8. Advocate Mr.J.H.Deshmukh appeared, applied
for his release on bail and also expressed
willingness on behalf of said contemnor to tender
unconditional apology, which is accordingly
tendered.
9. Other contemnors represented by Advocate
Mr.M.D.Shinde, have pleaded ignorance as regards
their act of contempt on the ground that the power
of attorney holder had dealt with the matter and
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:49:13 :::
4 CRI. CP NO.1/2009
they had no knowledge, in fact, of whatever had
transpired. They pleaded that they had already
tendered apology and pleaded for leniency, apart
from being excused.
10. We would like to refer to the text
contained in reply to the notice of show cause of
contempt given by the trial Court, wherein the
contemnors had written objectionable matter.
Relevant portion appearing in Reference order
reads as follows:
“1. A. In collusion with Rodga Masjid
Trust and with biased mind the court hasissued show cause notice.
B. Said show cause notice defamed
applicants. The applicants are intendingto initiate proceedings against this
court.
C. The show cause notice is illegal.
Court is called upon to prove as to how
any court can pass written orderdemanding Succession Certificate.
D) Court (this Court) doesn’t know the
procedure for issuance of certificate”.
The contemnors have also made contemptuous and
intimidating statements as under:
“2. A. The Court shall not initiate any
action against the applicants i.e. other
heirs and power of attorney holder.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:49:13 :::
5 CRI. CP NO.1/2009
B. Take the note that immediately after
receipt of permission a case for
defamation will be lodged against thisCourt.
C. …If it is so, then this Court shall
prove it strictly.”
11. Upon perusal of language used in reply we
notice that from any point of view and
perspective, the language consists of a threat
which is a contempt on the face of the Court.
12.
Considering the apology now tendered
before this Court by all the contemnors, we are
satisfied that the Respondent nos.:-
(3) Sau.Rahematbee Sayyad Amin,
(4) Sau.Shaikh Julekha alias Nasim,
(5) Sayyad Khalik Sayyad Amin, and
(6) Sayyad Ainul Sayyad Amin,have expressed contemptuous text. However, they
are rustic and are ignorant of consequences of
whatever they have expressed and signed. Thoughthey are liable for being convicted for their act,
the act is not proved to be “wilful act of
contempt”. These contemnors can, therefore, be
cautioned and the notice can be dropped.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:49:13 :::
6 CRI. CP NO.1/2009
13. Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin turns out to be
main contemnor. He has now exhibited repentance.
14. Upon due consideration of the manner in
which Sayyad Yunus has behaved, his apology
cannot be accepted as heart felt repentance. His
explanation does not consist of any explanation or
justification for what he has behaved. He is
content with simple plea of error and apology.
Whenever he had appeared in past, his conduct was
seen to be stiff, stubborn and unmindful towards
whatever he had done. He does not deny that he
was power of attorney and does not plead that he
was under any mistaken belief for what he had
done. He seems to use the device of “apology” as
a ladder for rescue, from being committed to
prison.
15. Act of contempt by Sayyad Yunus Sayyad
Amin thus reveals and is proved to be act of
wilful contempt and any expression, heartfelt
remorse or apology has not emerged. An apology
tendered to evade or repell consequence has to be
looked upon as a pretence.
16. Therefore, Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin is
liable to be convicted for contempt, of trial
Court.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:49:13 :::
7 CRI. CP NO.1/2009
17. We had also heard learned Advocate
Mr.J.H.Deshmukh for Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin on
the point of sentence, if Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin
is convicted eventually.
18. Learned Advocate had urged for leniency
on the ground that :-
(a) Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin being a
rustic person and that he may havebehaved what he has, due to being
misguided and intimidated.
(b) Behaviour of Sayyad Yunus Sayyad
Amin states that no sane person can
behave what Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Aminhas done. His expressions are those of an
intemperate and an intimidated ormisguided soul. He must be and is rustic
and even below the level of idiocy of asimpleton. Even lay persons know the
fall-outs of contempt of authority. Lack
of sane behaviour alone can lead to such
behaviour. True it is that the intentionwill have to be inferred, but the rustic
background of Sayyad Yunus Sayyad Amin
will have to be borne in mind.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:49:13 :::
8 CRI. CP NO.1/2009
(c) He, therefore, deserves leniency.
Whatever he has undergone is far more apunishment and chastisement-than what a
guilty person would deserve.
19. We partly accept the plea in defence to
sentence, since patience, wisdom and prudence are
becoming a rare specie of human mind, as we
experience in day-today life. We are, therefore,
satisfied that the rustic background of Sayyad
Yunus Sayyad Amin, which was the cause of extreme
behaviour, is the cause of leniency as well.
20. We direct that sentence to Sayyad Yunus
Sayyad Amin-respondent no.2 be equal to his period
of actual imprisonment. He be released forthwith.
Criminal Application Nos.4066/2011, 1912/2011
and 3146/2011 are disposed.
(A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.H.JOSHI,J.)
…
AGP/1-09cp
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:49:13 :::
