Shri. Sainath S/O. Ramrao Thombre vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1277 Bom

                                              {1}
                                                                       Cr wp 392.16.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                               
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.392 OF 2016




                                                      
     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




                                          
              Versus


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


     2        The Collector / District Magistrate,
              Osmanabad
      


     3        Dr. Prashant Narnaware
   



              Collector, Osmanabad                                       Respondents

Mr.V.D. Sapkal advocate for the petitioner

_______________

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

(Date : 6th APRIL, 2016.)

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: R.M. Borde, J)

1 Heard.

{2} Cr wp 392.16.odt

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

for final decision at admission stage.

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.

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:

" 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 -

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





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

{3} Cr wp 392.16.odt

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. (3) Every motion or reference made under this section

shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is allegedly to be guilty.

Explanation - In this section, the expression "Advocate- General" means -

(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the Attorney-

General or the Solicitor-General

(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;

(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. "

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

{4} Cr wp 392.16.odt

jurisdiction and as such deserves to be quashed and set aside and

is accordingly quashed and set aside.

6 Rule is accordingly made absolute.

                  (K.L. WADANE, J)                  (R.M.BORDE, J)




                                     
     Later on                
                            

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.

                  (K.L. WADANE, J)                  (R.M.BORDE, J)





     vbd