SATTAR KHAN Vs. SHRI R.K. BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONTEMNER -respondent is present in person.

(2.) THIS contempt petition has been filed by petitioner Sattar Khan raising grievance that Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur has despite the stay order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3424/2008 filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 proceeded against him for prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. As per the facts of the present case, claim submitted by petitioner Sattar Khan was ultimately found to be bogus and on that basis, learned Tribunal while rejecting the claim of the petitioner directed recovery of the amount paid to the claimant under 'no fault liability'.

(3.) CONTEMNER respondent, who is present in person submits that notice under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner on 2/9/2008 and at that time, copy of the order dated 25/8/2008 passed by this Court was not produced before him either by the petitioner or his counsel. Moreover, stay order passed by this Court merely stayed the recovery and in this situation notice under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was issued. Respondent never intended to violate any order of this Court muchless he cannot think of making any such violation being a judicial officer. Even the certified copy of the order dated 25/8/2008 was in fact produced by the petitioner on 3/9/2008 and thereafter proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. were stayed. Respondent has submitted an unconditional apology stating therein that he has highest regard for the majesty of this Court and that even then if it is remotely found that any action on his part was not in conformity with the order of this Court, he tenders unconditional apology.