{"id":208468,"date":"2011-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-11-30T02:38:34","modified_gmt":"2017-11-29T21:08:34","slug":"the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"The Registrar (Adm vs Khandu Punju Jadhav on 8 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The Registrar (Adm vs Khandu Punju Jadhav on 8 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: Naresh H. Patil, T.V. Nalawade<\/div>\n
                                                                        Cri.C.P. 1\/2011\n                                            1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                   APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n                CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2011\n\n           The Registrar (Adm),\n           High Court of Bombay\n           Bench at Aurangabad.                         ....Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                  Versus\n\n     1.    Khandu Punju Jadhav,\n           Armed Police Constable (Rtd).,\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n           R\/o.-29, Ashok Nagar,\n           Jamangiri Road, Dhule\n                        \n     2.    The State of Maharashtra                     ....Respondents.\n                       \n     Mr. Satish B. Talekar, Amicus curiae.\n     Mr. K.P. Jadhav, Contemnor, party in person, present. \n     Mr. D.V. Tele, APP for State\/respondent No. 2.\n      \n\n                                         CORAM   :       NARESH H. PATIL &\n                                                        T. V. NALAWADE,   JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                         DATED    :     8th April, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT :  [ PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.]<\/p>\n
     1.    The   contemnor   Shri.   Khandu   Punju   Jadhav   is   charged   for <\/p>\n
     committing criminal contempt of the Court as defined under section 2 <\/p>\n
     (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and punishable under section 12 <\/p>\n
     of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    Shri.   K.P.   Jadhav   was   convicted   for   offence   punishable   under <\/p>\n
     section   13 (1) (e) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, <\/p>\n
     1988 and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of <\/p>\n
     Rs.   20,000\/-   (Rupees   twenty   thousand),   in   default   to   Simple <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                              Cri.C.P. 1\/2011
\n                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
     Imprisonment   for   three   months   in   Special   Case   No.   86\/1995.   The <\/p>\n
     judgment   and   order   was   delivered   on   31st   March   2008   by   Shri.   R.  V.\n<\/p>\n
     Jatale, Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dhule.\n<\/p>\n
     3.      The   contemnor   preferred   an   appeal   against   the   said   judgment <\/p>\n
     and order of conviction to the High Court. The appeal was numbered as <\/p>\n
     Criminal Appeal No. 130\/2008. The appeal was admitted by the learned <\/p>\n
     Single Judge of this Court (Coram : Justice V.R. Kingaonkar) on 25th of <\/p>\n
     April 2008. The contemnor filed Criminal Application No. 1306\/2008 for <\/p>\n
     grant of bail.  By an order dated 25th  of April 2008  the learned  Single <\/p>\n
     Judge   of   this   Court   suspended   substantive   sentence   and   released   the <\/p>\n
     contemnor on bail.\n<\/p>\n
     4.      The   contemnor   addressed   a   communication   dated   28th   of <\/p>\n
     January   2011   to   Her   Excellency   Hon’ble   the   President   of   India   and <\/p>\n
     circulated   its   copies   to   various   Hon’ble   dignitaries,   and   Hon’ble   the <\/p>\n
     Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. By a communication dated 25th of <\/p>\n
     January 2011 the Registrar (Adm), Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High <\/p>\n
     Court   forwarded   copy   of   communication   written   by   the   contemnor <\/p>\n
     dated  28th of January  2011 to the office  of Registrar  of Bombay  High <\/p>\n
     Court for being placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate <\/p>\n
     orders in view  of the  Bombay  High  Court  Appellate  Side  Rules,  1960, <\/p>\n
     Chapter XXXIV, Part-II, 5 (f) to (i).\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:45 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                               Cri.C.P. 1\/2011
\n                                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
     5.      By a communication dated 15th February 2011, Registrar (Judl-I) <\/p>\n
     informed   the   Registrar   (Judl),   High   Court   of   Bombay,   Bench   at <\/p>\n
     Aurangabad   that   Hon’ble   the   Chief   Justice   has   been   pleased   to   take <\/p>\n
     cognizance   under   Bombay   High   Court   Appellate   Side   Rules,   1960, <\/p>\n
     Chapter XXXIV, Part-II, 5 (f) to (i). It was requested to take further steps <\/p>\n
     in accordance with the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     6.<\/p>\n
             By an order dated 22nd February 2011, the Division Bench of this <\/p>\n
     Court (Coram : Justice P.V. Hardas and Justice A.V. Potdar) observed that <\/p>\n
     offence punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act has been prima <\/p>\n
     facie established against the contemnor. Registry was directed to issue <\/p>\n
     bailable warrant against the contemnor.\n<\/p>\n
     7.      By   an   order   dated   18th   of   March   2011   the   presence   of   the <\/p>\n
     contemnor   was   recorded   by   this   Court.  This   Court   made   preliminary <\/p>\n
     inquiries   with   the   contemnor   in   respect   of   reasons   for   writing   such <\/p>\n
     contemptuous communication in respect of the learned Judge Shri. R.V.\n<\/p>\n
     Jatale. The proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 130\/2008 was called for <\/p>\n
     perusal   of   this   Court   on   the   said   date.  We   recorded   that   during   the <\/p>\n
     interaction with the contemnor, no remorse was noticed in respect of <\/p>\n
     objectionable writings communicated by the contemnor regarding the <\/p>\n
     learned   Judge   Shri.   R.V.   Jatale.   Learned   Counsel   Shri.   S.B.   Talekar, <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                 Cri.C.P. 1\/2011
\n                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
     appointed as amicus curiae, had submitted that the allegations made by <\/p>\n
     the   contemnor   against   the   learned   Judge   are   highly   contemptuous, <\/p>\n
     scandalous and serious in nature and the contemnor is required to be <\/p>\n
     dealt with strictly in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
     8.      We   issued   notice   in   Form-   I   as   appended   to   the   Contempt <\/p>\n
     (Bombay High Court) Rules, against the contemnor, returnable on 29th <\/p>\n
     of March 2011. It was observed that the contemnor was entitled to file <\/p>\n
     reply in respect of notice issued to him.  The  Registry  was directed  to <\/p>\n
     forward   copies  of   the   communications   sent  by  the   contemnor   to   the <\/p>\n
     High Court along with the notice in Form-I. The contemnor was directed <\/p>\n
     to remain personally present on the adjourned dates until further orders.\n<\/p>\n
     9.      On 29th March 2011 the contemnor was present in the Court. The <\/p>\n
     contemnor   submitted   that   inquiry   be   initiated   against   the   Judicial <\/p>\n
     Officer Shri. R.V. Jatale by calling him in the Court in presence of the <\/p>\n
     contemnor. It was the grievance of the contemnor that he had written <\/p>\n
     several   communications   in   respect   of   objectionable   conduct   of   the <\/p>\n
     learned   Judicial   Officer   Shri.   R.V.   Jatale   and   inspite   of   the   same,   the <\/p>\n
     concerned officers of the Court have not conducted the inquiry against <\/p>\n
     Shri. R.V. Jatale. The charge in respect of the communication made on <\/p>\n
     28th   Janauary   2011   was   framed   against   the   contemnor   to   which   he <\/p>\n
     pleaded not guilty.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:45 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                               Cri.C.P. 1\/2011
\n                                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
     10.     This Court provided one more opportunity to the contemnor and <\/p>\n
     posted the hearing of the matter on 8th of April 2011 i.e. today.\n<\/p>\n
     11.     The   contemnor   is   present   in   the   Court.   He   has   submitted   a <\/p>\n
     written statement. The contemnor had already expressed his desire to <\/p>\n
     look   after   his   defence   personally.   The   contemnor   filed   a   written <\/p>\n
     statement in his defence. After going through the written statement, it <\/p>\n
     was   noticed   that   the   contemnor   had   specifically   raised   certain <\/p>\n
     contentions which amounted to commit further contempt of Court and <\/p>\n
     therefore, it was necessary\/desirable to frame specific charge against the <\/p>\n
     contemnor. Therefore, additional charge was accordingly framed which <\/p>\n
     was explained to the contemnor. The contemnor pleaded not guilty to <\/p>\n
     the said charge.\n<\/p>\n
     12.     From   the   submissions   advanced   by   the   contemnor   and   the <\/p>\n
     contents of written statement, we find that the contemnor is very much <\/p>\n
     aware   of   the   charge   which   was   framed   against   him   in   respect   of   his <\/p>\n
     objectionable communications made in respect of the learned Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     13.     In the written statement, the contemnor submitted that Shri. R.V.\n<\/p>\n
     Jatale manipulated the record and illegally convicted and sentenced him <\/p>\n
     to undergo imprisonment of two years and imposed fine of Rs. 20,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:45 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                              Cri.C.P. 1\/2011
\n                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
     According to him, the application filed against Shri. R.V. Jatale would not <\/p>\n
     amount   to   contempt   of   Court.   It   was   submitted   that   Judges   have <\/p>\n
     conspired to protect Shri. R.V. Jatale and the Judges and Officers of the <\/p>\n
     Court   have   flouted   law   and   are   behaving   in   dictatorial   manner.   The <\/p>\n
     contemnor   insisted   for   conducting   inquiry   of   Shri.   R.V.   Jatale.   It   is <\/p>\n
     submitted in writing by the contemnor that the learned Judge Shri. R.V.\n<\/p>\n
     Jatale   does   not   have   good   sense,   which   could   be   established   by   the <\/p>\n
     contemnor. The learned Judge  Shri.  Jatale had  violated human rights, <\/p>\n
     therefore, he should be hanged till death. Therefore, he prayed that it <\/p>\n
     should be ordered that he should be hanged till death. The contemnor <\/p>\n
     submitted that instead of inquiring into the conduct of Shri. R.V. Jatale, <\/p>\n
     the Judges have conspired to initiate false cases against the contemnor.\n<\/p>\n
     The contemnor had expressed that in the Judicial System the judges are <\/p>\n
     behaving in dictatorial manner, misusing their position and if an inquiry <\/p>\n
     is conducted against Shri. R.V. Jatale in presence of the contemnor, he <\/p>\n
     would be in a position to establish his charges.\n<\/p>\n
     14.     The contemnor further submitted that he belongs to scheduled <\/p>\n
     caste   (Mahar).   In   the   concluding   statement   of   written   statement,   the <\/p>\n
     contemnor submitted that he had not committed contempt of Shri. R.V.\n<\/p>\n
     Jatale,  instead  the   learned  Judge  has  committed  contempt  in writing, <\/p>\n
     therefore,   his   conduct   be   inquired   into   as   the   Judge   had   committed <\/p>\n
     criminal offence.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:45 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                              Cri.C.P. 1\/2011
\n                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
     15.        The   contemnor   during   his   oral   submissions   did   not   show   any <\/p>\n
     remorse in respect of objectionable communications made on 28th of <\/p>\n
     January   2011   and   the   contemptuous   statements   made   in   the   written <\/p>\n
     statement filed before this Court today. The contemnor submitted that <\/p>\n
     he has not committed contempt of the Court. He was found firm on his <\/p>\n
     allegations made against Shri. R.V. Jatale. He stated that Shri. Jatale failed <\/p>\n
     to understand the criminal case wherein the contemnor was accused.\n<\/p>\n
     The   contemnor   had   used   very   harsh,   contemptuous,   scandalizing <\/p>\n
     remarks against Shri. R.V. Jatale, who was the Trial Judge in Special Case <\/p>\n
     No.   86\/1995   wherein   the   contemnor   was   accused.   The   contemnor <\/p>\n
     submitted that Shri. R.V. Jatale did not understand the facts of the case <\/p>\n
     and reached absolutely wrong and illegal conclusions.\n<\/p>\n
     16.        The contemnor submitted that he is not keeping good health and <\/p>\n
     it is difficult for him to attend the dates of hearing of the matter.  He <\/p>\n
     requested   for   expeditious   hearing   and   disposal   of   the   case.   After <\/p>\n
     providing appropriate and adequate opportunity to put up his case, we <\/p>\n
     inquired with the contemnor, as to whether the contemnor would attend <\/p>\n
     the   next   date   for   pronouncement   of   the   judgment   to   which   the <\/p>\n
     contemnor expressed his desire that the judgment be delivered today <\/p>\n
     itself.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:45 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                               Cri.C.P. 1\/2011
\n                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
     17.       The learned counsel Shri. A.T. Kanawade holding for Shri. Talekar <\/p>\n
     placed   on   record   copy   of   judgment   reported   in  (2007)   14   Supreme <\/p>\n
     Court Cases 1, Haridas Das Vs. Uash Rani Bank (SMT) and others. The <\/p>\n
     learned APP Shri. D.V. Tele submitted that the writings of the contemnor <\/p>\n
     under communication made on 28th of January 2011, and the written <\/p>\n
     statement   of   the   contemnor   filed   today   and   the   oral   submissions <\/p>\n
     advanced   by   the   contemnor   clearly   make   out   a   case   of   contempt   of <\/p>\n
     court. The learned APP submitted that the writing and the submissions <\/p>\n
     are   highly   objectionable,   contemptuous   in   nature   and   amounts   to <\/p>\n
     scandalizing the Court, lower its dignity in the eye of public at large. The <\/p>\n
     learned APP further submitted that the contemnor has no remorse in <\/p>\n
     respect of contemptuous address made by him and inspite of providing <\/p>\n
     appropriate opportunities the contemnor is not apologetic.\n<\/p>\n
     18.       The provisions of section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act reads <\/p>\n
     thus :-\n<\/p>\n
                     “(c)       criminal   contempt   ”   means   the   publication
\n                     (whether by words. spoken or written, or by signs, or
\n                     by   visible   representations,   or   otherwise)   of   any <\/p>\n
                     matter   or   the   doing   of   any   other   act   whatsoever
\n                     which-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     (i)   scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers  or
\n                     tends to lower the authority of, any court ; or <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                     (ii)   prejudices,   or   interferes   or   tends   to   interfere <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                            Cri.C.P. 1\/2011
\n                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
                    with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    (iii)   interferes   or   tends   to   interfere   with,   or
\n                    obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of
\n                    justice in any other manner ; ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     19.    The   contemnor   was   provided   with   adequate   opportunities.\n<\/p>\n
     Charge is framed against the contemnor and explained to him to which <\/p>\n
     the   contemnor   pleaded   not   guilty.   The   contemnor   was   a   police <\/p>\n
     constable in the service of the State. By a judgment and order dated 31st <\/p>\n
     of   March   2008   he   was   convicted   and   sentenced   for   the   offence <\/p>\n
     punishable   under   section   13(1)(e)   r\/w.   13   (2)   of   the   Prevention   of <\/p>\n
     Corruption Act, 1988. His appeal filed against his order of conviction is <\/p>\n
     still   pending   before   this   Court.   From   the   writing   of   communication <\/p>\n
     made   by   the   contemnor   dated   28th   of   January   2011   and   the   written <\/p>\n
     statement filed before this Court today, we are convinced to hold that the <\/p>\n
     writings and the contentions raised in the written statement are highly <\/p>\n
     contemptuous   in   nature.   The   contemnor,   during   the   course   of   his <\/p>\n
     submission   had   stated   that   he   had   written   several   such <\/p>\n
     communications, but so far no inquiry was initiated against Shri. R. V.\n<\/p>\n
     Jatale, the learned Judge, who passed judgment against the contemnor.\n<\/p>\n
     We   have   noticed   that   the   contemnor,   has   absolutely   no   remorse   in <\/p>\n
     respect of the objectionable communications made by him. The charge <\/p>\n
     was framed against him and he was made aware about the nature of the <\/p>\n
     contempt proceedings. The contemnor being a constable must be aware <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                Cri.C.P. 1\/2011
\n                                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
     of the judicial proceedings conducted in the Trial Court. The contemnor <\/p>\n
     had filed appeal against the order of conviction and sentence which is <\/p>\n
     still pending in this Court and the contemnor is on bail under the orders <\/p>\n
     passed by the High Court pending the hearing and final disposal of the <\/p>\n
     appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     20.     Perusal of the objectionable   writings of the contemnor and the <\/p>\n
     written statement\/reply signed by the contemnor filed in response to the <\/p>\n
     notice issued by this Court, we find that it amounts to  scurrilous attacks <\/p>\n
     on   the   integrity,   honesty,   judicial   competence   and   impartiality   of   the <\/p>\n
     concerned   Judge,   who   convicted   and   sentenced   the   contemnor.   The <\/p>\n
     language   used   is   offensive   and   intimidating.   It   amounts   to   bringing <\/p>\n
     down the institution to disrespect and disrepute. It impairs confidence <\/p>\n
     of the people in the Court. If such conduct is allowed to go unnoticed <\/p>\n
     then   it   may   provide   handle   to   the   disgruntled   to   malign   the   Judges <\/p>\n
     leading to character assassination.\n<\/p>\n
     21.     We are referring to the observations made by the Apex Court in <\/p>\n
     the   case   of  Haridas   Das  cited   supra.   Para   1,   28   and   30   of   the   said <\/p>\n
     judgment reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                              “Judge   bashing”   and   using   derogatory   and
\n                     contemptuous language against Judges has become
\n                     a   favourite   pastime   of   some   people.   These
\n                     statements   tend   to   scandalise   and   lower   the <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                  Cri.C.P. 1\/2011
\n                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
      authority   of   the   courts   and   cannot   be   permitted
\n      because,   for   functioning   of   democracy,   an <\/p>\n
      independent   judiciary   to   dispense   justice   without
\n      fear and favour is paramount. Its strength is the faith
\n      and   confidence   of   the   people   in   that   institution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      That   cannot   be   permitted   to   be   undermined
\n      because that will be against the public interest.\n<\/p>\n
      28.     Judiciary   is   the   bedrock   and   handmaid   of <\/p>\n
      democracy. If people lose faith in justice parted by a <\/p>\n
      court   of   law,   the   entire   democratic   set-up   would
\n      crumble down. In this background, observations of
\n      Lord Denning, M.R. in Metropolitan Properties Ltd. V.\n<\/p>\n
      Lannon are relevant : (ALL ER p. 310 D)
\n              “Justice   must   be   rooted   in   confidence;   and
\n      confidence is destroyed when right-minded people <\/p>\n
      go away thinking : “The Judge was biased.”\n<\/p>\n
      30.     Majesty of law continues to hold its head high
\n      notwithstanding   such   scurrilous   attacks   made   by <\/p>\n
      person   who   feel   that   the   law   courts   will   absorb
\n      anything and everything, including attacks on their
\n      honesty, integrity and impartiality. But it has to be
\n      born in mind that such divinity and magnanimity is <\/p>\n
      not its weakness but its strength. It generally ignores
\n      irresponsible   statements   which   are   anything   but
\n      legitimate   criticism.   It   is   to   be   noted   that   what   is
\n      permissible   is   legitimate   criticism   and   not
\n      illegitimate   insinuation.   No   court   can   brook   with
\n      equanimity something which may have tendency to
\n      interfere   with   the   administration   of   justice.   Some <\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                               Cri.C.P. 1\/2011
\n                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
                     people   find   judiciary   a   soft   target   because   it   has
\n                     neither the power of the purse nor the sword, which <\/p>\n
                     other   wings   of   democracy   possess.   It   needs   no
\n                     reiteration that on judiciary millions pin their hopes,
\n                     for protecting their life, liberty, property and the like.\n<\/p>\n
                     Judges do not have an easy job. They repeatedly do
\n                     what   rest   of   us   (the   people)   seek   to   avoid,   make
\n                     decisions,   said   David   Pannick   in   his   book  Judges.
\n                     Judges   are   mere   mortals,   but   they   are   asked   to <\/p>\n
                     perform a function which is truly divine.”\n<\/p>\n
     22.       Considering   the   material   placed   on   record,   the   written <\/p>\n
     submission   and   the   oral   submission   of   the   contemnor   and   the <\/p>\n
     submissions advanced by the learned APP, we are of the view that the <\/p>\n
     contemnor has committed criminal contempt as defined under section <\/p>\n
     2(c)   of   the   Contempts   of   Courts   Act.  The   conduct   of   the   contemnor <\/p>\n
     attracts punishment for committing the contempt of court punishable <\/p>\n
     under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     23.       The contemnor is aged person. He stated that he is not keeping <\/p>\n
     good   health.   Considering   his   age   and   health   condition,   lenient   view <\/p>\n
     needs to be taken while awarding the sentence. Hence, we pass following <\/p>\n
     order.\n<\/p>\n
     (1)         The   Contemnor   Shri.   Khandu   Punju   Jadhav   is   convicted   for <\/p>\n
     committing   contempt   of   Court   punishable   under   section   12   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:10:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                             Cri.C.P. 1\/2011
\n                                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
     Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)       He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of <\/p>\n
     one month.\n<\/p>\n
     (3)       The contemnor to be taken in police custody for execution of the <\/p>\n
     order. <\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.]    \n                              ig                      [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] \n\n                                                                 \n     ssc\/cricp1.11\n                            \n            \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:10:45 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The Registrar (Adm vs Khandu Punju Jadhav on 8 April, 2011 Bench: Naresh H. Patil, T.V. Nalawade Cri.C.P. 1\/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2011 The Registrar (Adm), High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. ….Appellant. Versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208468","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Registrar (Adm vs Khandu Punju Jadhav on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Registrar (Adm vs Khandu Punju Jadhav on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-29T21:08:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Registrar (Adm vs Khandu Punju Jadhav on 8 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-29T21:08:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2588,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011\",\"name\":\"The Registrar (Adm vs Khandu Punju Jadhav on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-29T21:08:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Registrar (Adm vs Khandu Punju Jadhav on 8 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Registrar (Adm vs Khandu Punju Jadhav on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Registrar (Adm vs Khandu Punju Jadhav on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-29T21:08:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Registrar (Adm vs Khandu Punju Jadhav on 8 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-29T21:08:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011"},"wordCount":2588,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011","name":"The Registrar (Adm vs Khandu Punju Jadhav on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-29T21:08:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-registrar-adm-vs-khandu-punju-jadhav-on-8-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Registrar (Adm vs Khandu Punju Jadhav on 8 April, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208468","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=208468"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208468\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208468"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208468"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}