RAMAPPA Vs. C SURENDRA HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE contempt petitions by the first respondent in writ petition No.12514/2010 disposed of on 12.08.2010 complaining that the writ petitioner arrayed as accused in this contempt petition has violated the court order, particularly condition No.5. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

(2.) CONTEMPT petitions are on the premise that the accused person has subsequent to the order sold the subject property and therefore has violated condition No.5.

(3.) WHAT is stated in the statement of objections is that the accused bonafide believed that after filing of the charge sheet, investigation was complete and charge sheet was filed on 31.12.2009 itself and therefore the accused was relieved of condition No.5 and property was sold as he was under an obligation which he had entered into prior to the passing of the order and with the order only indicating that property should not be alienated during the pendency of the enquiry by the CBI, to fulfill his commitment, the accused person had sold the property subsequently.