Ajith Kumar, Vs Thiru. Adarsh Pachera, Ips.

Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to initiate contempt proceedings under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondent herein for wilful disobedience to the order in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2024 dated 24.10.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Act, Perambalur and punish them accordingly.

¶15

1

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Contempt Petition No.3621 of 2025

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Parasaran P.A. for Mr.Sujeeth G. For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)

¶21

This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Act, Perambalur.

¶22

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, by referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent submitted that the order dated 24.10.2024 was received by the respondent on 14.11.2024 and that immediate steps were taken to comply with the same. Despite earnest efforts, the CCTV footage from Padalur Police Station and Perambalur Government Headquarters General Hospital for the specified period could not be retrieved. The said facts were duly reported to the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases, Perambalur on 24.12.2024 and

¶23

2

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Contempt Petition No.3621 of 2025 the same was also served on the petitioner/ de-facto complainant. Hence, there is no wilful disobedience of the order dated 24.10.2024 and the contempt petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

The relevant paragraphs of the said counter affidavit is extracted

¶27

hereunder :

¶28

“8. I respectfully submit that the above order passed on 24.10.2024 and the copy of the order received by me on 14.11.2024 from the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Act, Perambalur. After getting above said order immediately I have forwarded the above order to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perambalur Sub Division. After receiving the above said order, the Deputy Superintendent of Police have requested the Inspector of Police, Technical Wing immediately to download and provide the above said CCTV footage based on the order dated 24.10.2024 the CCTV surveillance footage relating to the accused, including the hospital surveillance recordings of the Perambalur Government Hospital and the surveillance camera footage installed at the Padalur Police Station, recorded during the following periods : from 3.00 p.m., to 8.00 p.m., on 26.09.2024, from 9.00 a.m., to 6.00 p.m., on 27.09.2024 and from 6.00 p.m., on 28.09.2024 to 2.00 p.m., on the subsequent day. Pursuant thereto, based on the inspection conducted by the Telecommunication/Technical Wing at Padalur Police Station, it was reported that the storage device of the CCTV there is no footage available in the above dates. And also the storage device of the CCTV camera is capable in NVR (Network Video Record-storage capacity of 6 TB) of retaining storage data only up to the period of 45 days. Further upon requesting the entire CCTV storage of device that beyond the said period the date gets override. Further upon requesting

¶29

3

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Contempt Petition No.3621 of 2025

¶32

on 02.12.2024 the CCTV footage recorded up to the point of recording the statement of the victim on 27.09.2024 from the surveillance cameras were installed at the Perambalur Government Headquarters General Hospital, the Superintendent of the said hospital, in his report on 05.12.2024, has stated that the CCTV footage storage only 7 to 10 days, therefore it is not able to seen in the recording.

¶33

9. I respectfully submit that I have submitted the above details to the Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases, Perambalur on 24.12.2024 vide Na.Ka.No.C2/e-8897156/2024.’’

¶34

On a careful consideration of the materials placed on record, including the counter affidavit, this Court finds that the order dated 24.10.2024 was received by the respondent on 14.11.2024 and that immediate and earnest steps were taken to retrieve the CCTV footage from the concerned locations, however, the same could not be secured due to technical limitations relating to the data retention period of the CCTV systems. It is also seen that a detailed report explaining the non-availability of the footage was submitted before the designated Court concerned and the same was also duly served on the petitioner/ de-facto complainant. However, the contempt petitioner/ de-facto complainant has not taken any steps for further progress before the designated Court concerned and has merely filed a contempt petition on 26.09.2025.

¶35

4

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Contempt Petition No.3621 of 2025

¶38

In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no willful disobedience or deliberate disobedience of the order dated 24.10.2024 on the part of the respondent. Hence, the contempt petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands closed.

¶39

However, the Police authorities are directed to strictly comply with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.3543 of 2020 [Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh & Others] regarding the installation of CCTV cameras and the preservation of footage, in letter and spirit. Any deviation from the said directions, shall be viewed seriously in future.

¶40

[P.V.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 20.01.2026

¶41

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Case Citation : Yes / No ms

¶42

5

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

Contempt Petition No.3621 of 2025

¶45

P.VELMURUGAN, J., AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.,