A D.B. Criminal Contempt petition under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was closed. The court noted the respondent had not been served for years due to an incorrect address and the events related back to 2004.
The present contempt proceeding is closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
:: ORDER ::
D.B. CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.2/ 2009 State of Rajasthan Vs. Mr.Rajendra Sharma, Editor, Dainik Bhaskar
19.5.2014
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Mr.Sandeep Taneja, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.
BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :
Heard Mr.Sandeep Taneja, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.
A notice was issued by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 18.11.2009 on the reference dated 26.8.2008 made by the then learned District & Sessions Judge, Dausa under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The respondent has yet not been served for want of proper and updated address. A plain perusal of the reference application reveals that at the relevant time, in the aforementioned court, an application for bail being No.123/ 2004 was pending consideration. The learned court on 18.5.2004 had issued certain directions to the Nangal Police Station. On 21.5.2004, the learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused informed the court that its order had deliberately not been complied with, and that, thereby the same had been disregarded. While the said issue was pending consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused laid before the court the issue dated 22.5.2004 of
2
the daily “ Dainik Bhaskar” containing a news item that the plea of conscious non-compliance of the order of the court had been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused also filed an application on 24.5.2004 insisting that the court ought to take note of this wrong report and pass appropriate orders for its contempt. The court, while deciding this application vide order dated 4.8.2008, sustained this plea and the reference application followed.
Apart from the fact that the events, as narrated in the reference application, relate back to the year 2004, to reiterate, the respondent, on whom the notice had been issued, had remained unserved over the years, for want of correct address.
We have perused carefully the contents of the order dated 4.8.2008 as well as the reference application, and are of the view that at this distant point of time, however without, in any way, undermining the comprehension of the learned court below and also without prejudice to the steps, that may be taken in future, the present proceeding be closed.
Ordered accordingly.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.
Skant/ -
Al l t he cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng emai l ed.
Shashi Kant Gaur , PA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the D.B. Criminal Contempt proceedings should be closed given the respondent's prolonged unservice and the age of the events.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Rajasthan
Mr. Rajendra Sharma
Amitava Roy
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
