COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. GURWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition arises out of the following facts:-

(2.) NOTICE was issued to the respondent Gunwant Singh but he could not served despite repeated efforts. It transpired, however, that the contemner constable was in fact Roop Singh and it was the person who had been present at the main gate of the CIA Staff premises and he obstructed the Warrant Officer from discharging his duties. In his reply, filed in Court, Roop Singh Constable has admitted that he had not given his correct name and number to the Warrant Officer so as to mislead him and had obstructed the Warrant Officer from entering the premises as he was unaware of the circumstances in which the raid had been conducted and being ignorant of the status of a Warrant Officer, had refused to allow his entry without the permission of the senior officers, in the light of the verbal instructions from the higher authorities that no outsider was to be allowed to enter the premises of the CIA Staff unless his identity was established. The contemner also expressed his apology for having committed the contempt, if any.

(3.) MR . Navkiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has alleged that the respondent Roop Singh, as a matter of fact, had admitted that he did not allow the Warrant Officer to enter the premises for almost one hour first outside the main gate and subsequently after he had entered the premises from the back gate and the conduct of the respondent in stating that he did not care for the orders of the High Court, the matter fell squarely within the definition of 'Criminal Contempt' given in sub-clause (iii) of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and in a case of the frustration of an order of a superior Court by a contemner, no leniency ought to be shown.