STATE Vs. SYED NISSAR GILANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent/contemner.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case are that the learned Sub -Judge, Budgam in an application arising out of Civil Original Suit pending decision before him came to issue ad -interim injunction against the respondent/defendants which included the present respondent namely Syed. Nissar Gilani, the then Tehsildar, Budgam. This order of ad -interim injunction appears to have been endorsed in the name of process server namely Mohammad Ishaq Bhat 14.9.1994, who reported that the respondent Syed Nissar Gilani refused to receive the copy of the said court order and passed derogatory remarks about the said court by expressing to the process server that the court of Sub -Judge cannot send such orders to him nor has it jurisdiction to pass any order against a Tehsildar. On receipt of this report of the process server the learned Sub -Judge, Budgam came to issue show cause notice to the respondent namely Syed.Nissar Gilani to the effect as to why a case of contempt against him be not submitted to the Honble High Court under Section 94 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir with a further notice as to why complaint for offence punishable under Section 187 RPC be not instituted against him before the court of competent jurisdiction. The respondent appears to have tendered no explanation in reply to this show cause notice as a result of which the learned Sub -Judge came to submit his report dated: 15.10.1994 to this court through Registrar Judicial together with the relevant record of appropriate action against the said Tehsildar. This report to be registered as COA No. 03/1994 in the registry of this court and came to be listed the Single Bench for 14.11.1994. On this day the learned Single Bench of this court recorded the following order.

(3.) RESPONDENT failed to cause his appearance before the court as a result of which coercive methods for his appearance came to be issued against him by virtue of orders dated: 21.11.1994, 23.11.1994 and 30.6.1995. It further appears that the respondent caused his appearance before the registry of this court on 01.05.1994 and also appears to have filled his explanation on 01.05.1995, where in he has inter -alia denied to have used any derogatory language against any Judicial Officer or any language that would amount to dis -regarding the orders of the court and has thrown himself to the mercy of the court tendering his unqualified and unconditional apology and has also explained his conduct in the reply affidavit.