BABULAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 4-contemner, Ramakant Ashthana, who was found in possession on supurdgi a disputed vehicle (Bus), was directed vide the order dated 3-10-1997 of this Court passed in Misc. Criminal Petition No. 3005/94, to produce the said vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar within a month, irrespective of any earlier order passed by the Courts at Gwalior or in the District of Bhind. It was further directed that the Magistrate at Lahar shall be free to pass fresh orders in respect of the supurdgi of the bus, in the nature and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the likelihood of the tampering of the same during the pendency of the trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar was also asked to expedite the trial of the case and decide the same at the earliest, preferably within six months.

(2.) PETITIONER Babulal had thereafter filed an application under Section 482, Cr. PC before this Court stating that the respondent-contemner has failed to produce the said vehicle before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court. With the result he has suffered a lot and has unnecessarily being dragged into litigation and has further prayed to issue proper directions against the respondent No. 4 to deposit mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month for the period in which he failed to comply with the orders of this Court.

(3.) THE respondcnt-contemner, who first time appeared on 21-7-2000 before this Court was repeatedly asked to produce the said vehicle before the Court at Lahar and on his failure to do so on 13-10-2000 was noticed for disobedience of the order dated 3-10-1997 passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 3005/94. In reply, although he had tendered an apology for non-production of the vehicle, but, contended that the vehicle is not in operational condition and could not be transported for production before the Court concerned. After issuance of the notice for contempt on 23-3-2001, the respondent-contemner again on 23-3-2001 sought one week's time for production of the said vehicle before the Court, even then he failed to comply with the aforesaid direction and argued that he could not be punished for contempt as contempt having been rendered infructuous being out of limitation.