COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. MOINUDDIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 18.9.1996 transfer application [Cr.M.(M).2246/96] along with application for stay [Cr.M.4171/96] came up before learned Single.ludge of this Court. Because of the allegations made therein against the learned Judge, the said petition was directed to be placed before Hon 'ble the Chief Justice, who on going through the allegations considered it to be a fit case for taking up the same on judicial side for appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act as also under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the case was posted before a Division Bench on 20.12.1996. The petition for transfer and application for stay were signed by Moinuddin Khan and his Counsel Shri S.K.Chaturvedi, Advocate, Prima facie finding the averments made in Sub-paras (xv), (xvi), (xviii) and (xxi) of para 3 of the transfer application and those in para 3 of the application for stay accompanying the said application for transfer, as tending to scandalise and lower the authority of the Court besides tending to interfere in the administration of justice thereby amounting to Contempt of Court, the Bench observed that the same calls for action against both of them. The contemners were directed to be summoned through bailable warrants made returnable on 8.1.1997. The order dated 20.12.1996 reads: "20.12.96 Present : None (Court on its own motion). Cr.C .1" .No. 28/96 Averments made in sub-paras (xv), (xvii), (xviii) and (xxi) of para 3 of the application seeking transfer of Cr.M.(M).No. 1264/96, titled Moinuddin Khan v. State and Another pending before the Bench of Justice S.K.Mahajan, and the averments in para 3 of the application for stay, Cr.M-4171 /96, accompanying the said petition are to the following effect:

(2.) We heard Mr. S.S. Gandhi as well as S.K. Chaturvedi and learned Counsel for Moinuddin again.

(3.) Mr. Candhi submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, apology of S.K. Chaturvedi was not liable to be accepted. It had not been tendered at the earliest opportunity. It is also not an act of contrition. It was offered only at the time when S.K. Chaturvedi found that there was no escape for him. To save him from punishment being inflicted that he had thought of tendering an apology, which was also not bona fide.