NEMICHAND BHIKAMCHAND JAIN Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition certain unfortunate events have happened which compel me to pass orders under5 the Contempt of Court Act,1971, The petition is for return of certain gold ornaments and primary gold weighing about 1211.5 and valued at Rs. 1,65,369.00 which were seized by the Respondent-Collector of Customs (Preventive) on 28th July, 1983. They were seized from the premises of the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, are used both for residence and for work. Certain proceedings took to the petitioner, are used both for ornaments and gold as a result of which ultimately an order dated 28- deliberately did not return the same to the petitioner. IN other words,although they made statements before the court saying that they would return these immediately to the petitioner they had absolutely no intention of carrying out the statements which they made before the court. I have not the slightest doubt that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the Deputy Collector R. Sharma, the Superintendent D. A. R. Mansoori and the Superintendent S. D. Mehta to ensure that the statement made on their behalf by counsel were not carried out and to mislead the court into believing that they would immediately return the gold and ornaments by making these false and misleading statements to the court. This was done in order to prevent any interim order being passed against them. They have ensured that delivery was sufficiently delayed to enable the Income-tax Dept. to serve an order of attachment. This conduct, in my view, clearly amounts to willful breach of the statements made in the court on behalf of the respondents in their presence. It is well known that when the respondents before the court are either the state or the Agency of the State, the court relies upon the statements made on their behalf by their counsel and does not insist on an undertaking being given as in the case of other legitants. This is under a belief (possibly mistaken) that the State behaves like a gentleman and carries out its word. May be, in view of the conduct of the respondents, this concession which is granted to them by the court is misplaced and it ought to be revoked. Perhaps the entire notice of gentlemanly conduct is now outdated. But the statements which are taken from counsel appearing for the State or authorities of the State ate equipment to an undertaking given to court and there is a clear breach of such undertaking which was given to court in the present case. Moreover, in the present case the statements which were made in court were made in order to mislead the court, for other superior motives, and to present an interim, order being passed. Such conduct on the part of the respondents tends to lower the authority of the court and interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings. Time was take on sensibly to carry out what the respondents has stated in court, but in reality to defeat that very statement by securing time for being served with an order from the Income Tax authorities. This is a clear attempt to defeat the course of justice. There has been not the slightest attempt on the part of the respondents either to their for their conduct or to purge themselves of the contempt which they have committed.

(2.) IN the affidavit of 2nd of April,1986 a grievance is sought to be made that on account of shortage of time the respondents could not deal with the affidavit of the petitioner dated 1st of April, 1986. Yesterday (1-4-1986), when I adjourned the matter till today to enable the respondents to file an affidavit in reply, Mr. Sethna made not the slightest grievance that the time given was too short for making the affidavit. In fact, since the affidavit only with the events that had happened in the couple of days, one day's time was more than sufficient to deal with the statement pertaining to these events. IN any case the respondents did not make any grievance about the shortage of time yesterday. In the affidavit filed by them they are now complaining about shortage of time.

(3.) There is absolutely nothing which in any way intimates the contempt which has been committed by the three officers R. Sharma, D. A. R. Mansoori and S. D. Mehta.