R S PARANJAPE Vs. SUNIL S DISHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP, for the petitioner, Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel, for respondent No. 1 and Mr. I. M. Khairdi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

(2.) These two criminal references under section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, "the Act") are made by the learned Principal District Judge and Sessions Judge, Sangli, (for short, "the learned Judge") vide his Judgment and order dated 16-9-2009. The references are made in Contempt Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2 of 2009, both initiated against contemnor No. 1 -Shri Sunil Sumatilal Doshi and contemnor No. 2 Shri Raosaheb Mahavir Chimanna (for short, "contemnor No. 1" and "contemnor No. 2"). The contempt proceedings were initiated in view of the contents of the applications - Exhibits 25 and 27 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 44 and 45 of 2009. These applications were filed by contemnor No. 2 under his signature seeking transfer of both the criminal appeals to some other Sessions Judge. The criminal appeals were arising from the judgment and order dated 13-1-2009 of conviction rendered by the 4th Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangli in Summary Criminal Cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "the N.I. Act"). In both these cases contemnor No. 2 was the complainant. The accused in these cases were sentenced to suffer RI for twelve months and to pay compensation of Rs. Nine lacs and in default to suffer RI for six months.

(3.) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the criminal appeals, the accused filed Exhibit-5-applications under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking stay of the substantive sentence. The learned Judge, while admitting the appeals, heard the applications for stay and at the very inception, before issuing notices to the complainant, granted ad-interim stay of the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court and also directed the appeals to be heard without paper books expeditiously. The notices were also issued to contemnor No. 2 to show cause as to why the ex parte stay granted should not be confirmed.