CHET RAM Vs. KHUB RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the complainant had filed a criminal case under Sections 447, 379 and 427 of the I.P.C. against the accused (respondent). On May 30, 1989, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged the accused finding no material to support the accusations made against the latter.

(2.) Aggrieved with the said order, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 62 of 1989 in this Court, which was disposed of ultimately on March 21, 1990. Order of discharge was set aside and the case was remanded for its further disposal in accordance with law. After remand, the accused was finally acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide his order dated 22nd September, 1990. During the pendency of the revision petition, on an application filed by the petitioner, this Court passed the following order: Order dated May 30, 1989 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, is stayed. It is further directed that the case property be not released till further orders. It appears that during the pendency of the revision petition, as per the allegations of the petitioner, the accused forcibly took possession of the case property from the spurdar and burnt a part of the same. In those circumstances, Contempt Petition. No. 50 of 1989 was filed by the petitioner in this Court which was disposed of vide the impugned order passed on August 17, 1993.

(3.) Before we proceed to decide the instant petition, it may be stated at the very outset that neither the remedy of appeal nor review is available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In other words, review is not maintainable. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this court has wide powers to review its own order under inherent powers if be assumed to be correct for the purpose of deciding this petition, even then we find no ground for interfering with the impugned judgment. There is no such new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, can be said not to be within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of arguing the contempt appeal before this Court. Secondly, the points, now being raised, have already been taken note of by this Court in its impugned judgment. Also, there is no error apparent on the face of the record which can be made the basis for exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In fact, as per the facts and circumstances of the case, pertaining to the commission of the contempt by the respondent, it is clear that the order dated May 30, 1989 was to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, not to release the case property till further orders. No doubt, the said order was within the knowledge of both the parties, even then spurdarT can also be said to be bound by it. It is not the case of the petitioner that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi or spurdar' concerned willfully disobeyed the order. Rather, the circumstances show that the respondent took the law in his own hands and took possession of the case property and thereby he committed a substantive offence punishable under the substantive law. These were the circumstances which led this Court to pass the impugned order. The consideration of the further fact that accused was finally acquitted and case property was ordered to be released in favour of the father of the accused-respondent, was an additional factor in arriving at that conclusion.