VIKRAM TUKARAM PATIL Vs. V K TARGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Deshrnukh Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yawal, vide his order dated the 26th of December 1984, referred this matter to this Court for taking action against Respondent No. 1 V.K. Targe for contempt of his Court (Yawal Court). It appears that one Vikram Tukaram Patil owned a tractor, which was seized by the Police Sub-Inspector, Yawal, as it was involved in Crime No. 120 of 1984. Patil filed an application to the Yawal Court for release of the seizure and delivery of possession of the said tractor to the owner. The Court passed an order directing that the tractor should be released in favour of Patil on a Supurdnama of Rs. 60,000/-. Patil produced the necessary Supurdnama before the Court and thereafter, the Yawal Court passed an order on the 29th of October 1984 and also addressed a letter to the Police Sub-Inspector, Yawal, to release the tractor in favour of Patil. It was the case of Patil that the Police Sub-Inspector refused to obey the order passed by the Yawal Court and on the contrary made derogatory remarks against the Court itself. This incident was brought to the notice of the Court on the 30th of October 1984 by filing an application for taking proper legal action. Ultimately, at a later date, the tractor came to be released. However, it is this action of disobedience of the order of the Court and uttering the derogatory remarks against the Court concerned which is the subject-matter of the present Contempt Petition. Respondent No. 1 Targe has denied the allegations made against him. According to him, on that day, i.e. on the 29th of October 1984, Patil came to the Police Station at 21.30 hours at night with an order of the learned Judicial Magistrate for releasing the tractor. When he came, the Writer Head Constable Sonawane was not present. The Muddemal register was with Sonawane and, therefore, at that very time, the tractor could not be released. Patil was called on the next day, but he did not turn up and instead filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate. Ultimately he took the delivery of the tractor in his absence from the Writer Head Constable a couple of weeks alter the order was passed. He also stated that since Patil did not come to collect the tractor on the next day, he sent a Constable to him informing that he should come and collect the tractor. It is the case of Patil that such an intimation was not received. Thus, obviously, there is a dispute between the parties about this factual position. To say the least, the controversy raised before us raises disputed questions of fact and, to some extent, there is word against word. Therefore, the case will have to be tested on the touch-stone of probabilities. Therefore, on the last date of hearing, we directed the learned Public Prosecutor to produce before us the Police Station diary for the year 1984, the duty register of the Writer Police Constable as well as the telephone bills. Today we are informed that the duty register is destroyed as per the practice followed. It is the case of the Police Sub-Inspector Yawal, that the duty register is destroyed after one year and, therefore, it is not available today. Further, even the telephone bill is not available with the District Engineer of Telephones, Jalgaon. Thus, we are placed in a circumstance where it is not possible to record a conclusive finding one way or the other, though from the conduct of Patil it appears that on the day when he presented the order of the Court on 29-10-1984, the tractor was not released in his favour. It is the case of Patil that Targe, Sub-Inspector, made derogatory remarks, which he denied, and the Court was required to pass further orders. It is the case of Targe that he had sent a Constable to inform Patil the he should take the possession and ultimately after two weeks the possession was delivered. Therefore, the conduct of Patil, the Complainant in the case, was all through consistent. Hence it cannot be said that the complaint made by him to the Court was unwarranted. However, in view of the fact that what words were uttered by Targe is only deposed to by the Complainant Patil before the trial Court and there is no evidence to corroborate his version in view of the destruction of relevant records. Therefore, for want of further material it is not possible for us to record a positive finding one way or the other, though it can safely be said that the conduct of Targe was not free from doubt, or above board.

(2.) We do not propose to further probe into the matter at this late stage since Targe, the Police Sub-Inspector, is already transferred from Yawal and has also tendered an unconditional apology. He has also stated in his affidavit that whatever lapses have occurred on his part were not intended as a disrespect either to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Yawal or to this Honble Court. He has also shown repentance for his lapses and then tendered an unconditional apology. In view of this, we are sure that Targe will not act in a similar manner in future. Dr. Naik, the learned Counsel appearing for him, assures U9 that his client has learnt a lot from these proceedings and will not repeat it in future. In view of this, we do not feel that any further action is called for in these proceedings.

(3.) With these observations, rule discharged.