MANGALMOY BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Today again a supplementary show cause has been filed by opposite party No. 2, Parwez Akhter, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Law and Order), Hirapur, Dhanbad, and in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the supplementary show cause, the officer expressed his unqualified apology for the letter which is Annexure 2 to the contempt petition written by him by which definitely the prestige of not only the individual lawyer has been derogated but the whole class of lawyers who are considered to be the officers of the Court are being disgraded.

(2.) Mr. P.K.Sinha, appearing for and on behalf of the officer concerned (opposite -party No. 2) submits that without going in to the further controversy into the matter, the whole letter as contained in Annexure -2 is withdrawn as a whole. Now the question comes in whether by withdrawal of the letter (Annexure -2) alone can make the writer of it immuned from contempt?. Definitely insultation and insinuation already made cannot be restored to by simple withdrawal of it and expressing unqualified apology in the Court. The facts and circumstances are to be considered and the action of the officer concerned should be construed in its proper perspective while deciding this issue of punishment as contempt has already been held to be committed buy the officer concerned as is expressed by this Court in earlier order dated 8 -4.1997.

(3.) There was a contract in between the B.C.C.L. and M/s. Gaya Coke Company, Private Limited and the advance money given by the Company was not returned by the B.C.C.L. and the Company came up before this Court when delivery of coal was not there for getting back his advance money. The B.C.CO. came up with counter -affidavit annexing a letter of this officer which was -marked as Annex re 3 to the writ petition stating that advice has been given by this officer not to return the money as investigation was going on some criminal cases against that Company. I have given the impression that when the letter was written till then there was no criminal case pending against the Company. It is not know, how the investigation was being taken without registration of the case by that time. However, this Court by its order dated 4.12.1996 had disposed of the writ petition giving direction to the B.C.C.L. to pay up the money, then again there was a letter by this officer concerned to B.C.C.L. reiterating his previous stand, then the B.C.C.L. came up for modification of the order of this Court. It was held by this Court by passing the order on the modification petition that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, has got no authority to make any advice in the matter when the Court was in seisin of the same. It was not understood how the officer concerned could get himself so involved in respect of criminal case and was harping again and again for making non -payment to the Company when the money was advanced to under the contractual agreement. The matter was in between the company and the B.C.CL. and if there was any criminal case against the Company, the Investigating agency is to proceed as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. There was no scope of the Investigating agency or the officer concerned who himself submitted in writing that he was entrusted with Law and Order duty and was only supervising authority of criminal investigation in the district of Dhanbad, had no authority or jurisdiction to inter -meddle with the Court proceedings in any manner whatsoever. However,when the modification petition was also disposed of then this opposite -party No. 2 Officer took another stand maligning the Advocate who appeared on behalf of the B.C.CL. to the effect that in connivance with the Legal Section of B.C.CL. that Advocate has not taken proper stand before this Court. He has not mentioned anything in the letter at Annexure -2 nor in the reply to show cause filed as to where from he could get such a noble proposition bringing slur against the officer of a Court. Perhaps the officer concerned was posing himself to be above board.