STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. O P JALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt case is suo motu taken up by this Court on the basis of the reference, dated 1-3-1999, passed by the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in I.A.No. 483 of 1995 in O.S.No. 230 of 1992.

(2.) I.A.NO. 483 of 1995 in O.S.No. 230 of 1992 was filed by the petitioners by name M/s. Deccan Syntex Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Sanjay Jalan, for punishing the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 i.e., the respondents herein for criminal contempt. The respondents in I.A.No. 483 of 1995 are in all six in number.

(3.) It was stated by the 2nd petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 483 of 1995 that he is the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner-Company; that he filed I.A.No. 828 of 1992 for appointment of Commissioner to search and seize the records of the company lying in the premises No. 5-2-175/1, R.P. Road, Secunderabad and accordingly ' one Sri Raghu was appointed as Commissioner for the said purpose. The said Commissioner seized the records from the custody of the 1st petitioner-Company lying in the said premises and placed them in a corner of the room in the first floor of the same premises under his lock and key and at that time the Commissioner also shifted two almirahs, file keeper and book vase inside the said room as the respondents did not produce the keys to open them and that it was a wooden panel room with AC duct and other furniture. It was further stated that the said Commissioner returned his warrant after completing the inventory except the files in the 'file cabinet box' and later the Court below appointed Sri M. Devender Reddy, Advocate, as Commissioner in the place of Sri Raghu, Advocate and the latter Commissioner Sri M. Devender Reddy opened the room in connection with execution of his warrant on 9-9-1994 and locked it again and affixed the paper seal with his signature across the key hole. It was further stated that the petitioner gave a requisition to the Advocate-Commissioner for inspection of the said records by the Commercial Tax Department authorities on 13-3-1995 and the Commissioner fixed the date 16-3-1995 for inspection. It was further alleged that on 16-3-1995 the petitioner, his advocate, one Seetharam, Senior Assistant of the Commercial Tax Officer, and the 5th respondent went to the room and found the paper seal tampered and on opening the room, they found the furniture, 'AC' AC switch board, cupboards, almirahs and inside paneling removed from the room and the roof ceiling in broken condition and they also found that the records were not in the same position as they were kept by the Advocate-Commissioner. It was also stated that the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 had access to the premises and to the said room where records are kept and they have deliberately-, meddled with the seal and having deliberately meddled with the seal and having gained entry into the room, committed theft of the files which are not recorded in the inventory list. Finally it is stated that the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 have committed offences under Sections 186, 187, 188, 202, 204, 466 and 477(a) of the Indian Penal Code and prayed the Court below to punish them for the guilty of criminal contempt and refer to the High Court under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act to the High Court.