Allowed

Shri. Sainath S/O. Ramrao Thombre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC6 Apr 2016WP/392/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a notice issued by the District Magistrate under Section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for lack of jurisdiction, as criminal contempt cognizance lies with the High Court under Section 15, not a District Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued under section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the District Magistrate quashed and set aside.

Shri. Sainath S/O. Ramrao Thombre Vs the State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Cr wp 392.16.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.392 OF 2016

¶5

Shri Sainath S/o Ramrao Thombre age: 46 years, occu: Government service as Police Inspector, presently working at Anandnagar Police Station, Washi, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad R/o Washi, tq. Washi, District Osmanabad Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

¶8

2 The Collector / District Magistrate, Osmanabad

¶9

3 Dr. Prashant Narnaware Collector, Osmanabad Respondents

¶10

Mr.V.D. Sapkal advocate for the petitioner Mr.K.S.Patil, APP for Respondent No.1 & 2

¶11

CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J & K.L. WADANE, JJ

¶12

(Date : 6^th APRIL, 2016.)

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶14

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

¶15

1 Heard.

¶16

Cr wp 392.16.odt

¶17

{2}

¶18

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final decision at admission stage.

¶19

3 A notice issued by the District Magistrate on 9.3.2016 under section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, directing the petitioner to show cause as to why action shall not be taken against him, is a matter of challenge in the instant petition.

¶20

4 The notice needs to be quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction, conferred on the issuing authority. Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deals with cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases which reads thus:

¶21

“ 15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases – (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by -

¶22

(a) the Advocate-General or

¶23

(b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate – General (or)

¶24

(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer

¶25

(2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate

¶26

Cr wp 392.16.odt

¶27

{3}

¶28

Court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate Court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

¶29

(3) Every motion or reference made under this section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is allegedly to be guilty.

¶30

Explanation - In this section, the expression “AdvocateGeneral” means -

¶31

(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the AttorneyGeneral or the Solicitor-General

¶32

(b) in relation to the High Court, the Advocate-General of the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established;

¶33

(c) in relation to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. ”

¶34

5 Section 17 of the Act of 1971 prescribes for procedure after cognizance, whereas section 18 prescribes that every case of criminal contempt under section 15 shall be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges. It needs no further elaboration that the District Magistrate does not have jurisdiction to exercise powers under the Contempt of Courts Act,1971. The impugned notice issued by the District Magistrate is without

¶35

Cr wp 392.16.odt

¶36

{4}

¶37

jurisdiction and as such deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶38

6 Rule is accordingly made absolute.

¶39

Later on

¶40

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, on instructions informs that, the notice impugned in this petition is already withdrawn by the District Magistrate. As such, its quashment is not warranted.

¶41

vbd

Shri. Sainath S/O. Ramrao Thombre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sainath S/O. Ramrao Thombre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok S/O Pundlikrao Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Mehboob Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhaurao S/O. Suryabhan Nage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chhayabai W/O Pundalik Ingale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Mumtaz Shaikh Ismaile Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ratu Alias Ratnakar Shamrao Kale. Vs the State of Maharashtra.