RAM AVTAR KANSAL Vs. G.R.SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By our judgment and order of November 28, 1988, in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 3 of 1986 Senior Sub -Judge, Dharamshala v. Ram Avtar Kansal and another, we had held respondent Kansal to be guilty of having committed criminal contempt within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one month. We also said, in our order, that in case respondent Kansal furnished a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000 to the Registrar of this Court within twenty four hours, the sentence awarded by us shall remain suspended for a period of six weeks to enable Sh. Kansal, if he so liked, to obtain appropriate orders, from the Supreme Court by filing an appeal.

(2.) On December 28, 1988, Ram Avtar Kansal presented an application under section 48?, Cr. P. C. in this Court. In it, he said that "he was pleading his innocence in view of the circumstances mentioned in the application and prayed that "the judgment order be reviewed and the punishment be revoked in the interest of justice". Also, that the review be listed for hearing after Winter Vacations. On February 23, 1989, he filed another application under section 482, Cr. P. C. In the opening part of this application he said that he had filed the first application on December 28, 1988, and that the next application was in continuation thereof. In the last paragraph of this application he said that in the circumstances mentioned by him he was not guilty of any contempt. Also, that the punishment imposed upon him be withdrawn. In the sentence with which he concluded the application he said that "my unconditional and unqualified apology filed on 7 -1 -1987 is already on the record which be accepted and punishment withdrawn."

(3.) The two applications filed by Shri Kansal on December 28, 1988, and February 23, 1989, were fixed for hearing on March 16, 1989. Ram Avtar Kansal was present in person and was heard by us. The only submission which was repeatedly made by Ram Avtar Kansal before us on that date was that, while deciding the contempt matter by our order dated November 28, 1988, we had omitted to take into consideration certain material on record, particularly, the second supplementary affidavit filed by him. We did not permit Ram Avtar Kansal to address us on the merits of two applications. The query which we repeatedly made to Ram Avtar Kansal was whether it was competent for this Court to review its decision. Ram Avtar Kansal only pointed out to the provisions of section 4s2, Cr. P. C. and said that he had no authority to supplement the plea that this Court is competent to review its decision. We reserved our order on the question of maintainability of these applications.