JAMUNA PRASAD JAISANI Vs. SHIKHA DUBEY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, whereby the contemner Smt. Shikha Dubey, Collector, Harda has been summoned for answering the charge of dis-obeying the order of this Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2105/96. This Court passed an order on 17-7-1997 in that Criminal Appeal to the effect that:

(2.) The reply filed on behalf of the contemner states that the contemner was of the view that the order dated 17-7 -1997, suspending the conviction of the petitioner, during the pendency of appeal did not debar her from passing an order, disqualifying the petitioner from the office of Panch of the Janpad Panchayat, Timarni and, therefore, she passed that order.

(3.) In the opinion of this Court, the defence taken by the contemner is totally untenable. This Court has not only quoted the ruling, but also quoted the Section 389 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and suspended the conviction of the petitioner. The order of suspension of conviction during the pendency of appeal was passed for the purpose of staying the operation of whatever additional dis-qualifications that were attached to the conviction of the appellant/petitioner. They became inoperative from the date of order on 17-7-1997. The consequence of the order of suspension of conviction was that the petitioner could not be deemed to be dis-qualified to hold the office of Panch of Janpad Panchayat Timarni. The Collector, the contemner was, therefore, deneuded of the power to declare that the office of the petitioner became vacant on account of the fact that he incurred dis-qualification under the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam because of conviction in the criminal case against which the appeal was filed. The contemner did not try to go through the order and the case, law which has been specifically cited with a view to guide her to come to right conclusion, and claims that under some mis-apprehension of law, passed the order disqualifying the petitioner. This plea is obviously a plea of legal literacy. It appears to this Court that the contemner was neither thoughtful nor careful, in passing that order, for which she has been summoned for committing contempt of this Court. It is a matter of common sense that suspension of conviction would mean that, not only, the petitioner would be deemed to be not convicted during the pendency of the appeal but also, any consequent disqualification attached to his person upon his conviction shall become inoperative and remain in abeyance pending his appeal. Otherwise, there was no purpose of passing the order suspending conviction. Moreover, this Court had indicated in its order in that Criminal Appeal that the order staying conviction is based on the ruling of Supreme Court in the case of Rama Narang, (1995) 2 sec 513 (supra). This Court also indicated the sections on which it relies for passing that order. There was little possibility of any doubt and in any case, the contemner could have obtained legal advice, if she was in doubt. The defence is, therefore, totally lame. It is ironical that a guardian of law and order is reduced to such a situation that she takes the plea of ignorance of plain, English. Perhaps it is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the State of M.P., so that one may say with Hamlet: Something is rotten in the State of....