Karnataka High Court
Sri M Shashidharan vs Sadashivappa S on 30 May, 2023
Bench: B.Veerappa, Venkatesh Naik T
1 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION No.430/2021
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION No.429/2021
IN CCC 430/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M. SHASHIDHARAN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE MAHENDRAN,
R/AT NO 26, 10TH CROSS,
PATEL LAYOUT, BALAGERE ROAD,
VARTHUR, BANGALORE 560087.
2. SRI V. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O VENKATAPPA, R/AT G-547,
6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, H.A.L C.T.S,
BANGALORE 560037.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP A/W
SMT. B. V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE)
2 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
AND:
1. S. SADASHIVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O SANNAMARABOVI,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
NO.15, 1ST CROSS, CKC GARDEN,
OPPOSITE TO BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF
ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL,
K. H. ROAD (DOUBLE ROAD),
BANGALORE 560027.
2. UMA MAHESHA M.,
S/O LATE R. MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O No.68, 'SRI BHAGIRATHI NILAYA',
2ND CROSS, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE,
DINNUR, R.T. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560032.
3. LOKESHA H.,
S/O HANUMANTHA RAJ URS,
RESIDING AT No.FA-655,
4TH FLOOR, CENTRAL TOWNSHIP,
HAL COLONY, MARATHAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE 560027.
ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 3 ARE
MEMBERS,
AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
NO.15, 1ST CROSS, CKC GARDEN,
OPPOSITE TO BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF
ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL,
K. H. ROAD (DOUBLE ROAD),
BANGALORE 560027.
A2 AND A3 ARE DELETED VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 28.07.2022
3 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
4. SRI. B.H. BALAJI
S/O LATE HONNEHALEGOWDA,
SECRETARY,
AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE
BUILDING CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
NO.15, 1ST CROSS, C.K.C GARDEN,
K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560027.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI ADVOCATE FOR A1;
SRI R.A. DEVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR A4;
A2 AND A3 ARE DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.07.2022)
IN CCC 429/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M. SHASHIDHARAN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE MAHENDRAN,
R/AT NO 26, 10TH CROSS,
PATEL LAYOUT, BALAGERE ROAD,
VARTHUR, BANGALORE 560087.
2. SRI V. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O VENKATAPPA, R/AT G-547,
6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, H.A.L C.T.S,
BANGALORE 560037. ...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP A/W
SMT. B. V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. S. SADASHIVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O SANNAMARABOVI,
4 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
NO.15, 1ST CROSS, CKC GARDEN,
OPPOSITE TO BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF
ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL,
K. H. ROAD (DOUBLE ROAD),
BANGALORE 560027.
2. NARAYANAPPA N.,
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA,
R/O No.179, " SHANTHI NILAYA",
1ST CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT
BEGUR, BENGALURU-560068.
ALSO ASSOCIATE MEMBER
AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
NO.15, 1ST CROSS, CKC GARDEN,
OPPOSITE TO BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF
ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL,
K. H. ROAD (DOUBLE ROAD),
BANGALORE 560027.
3. SRI. B.H. BALAJI
S/O LATE HONNEHALEGOWDA,
SECRETARY,
AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE
BUILDING CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
NO.15, 1ST CROSS, C.K.C GARDEN,
K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560027.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI ADVOCATE FOR A1;
SRI R.A. DEVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR A3;
A2 DISMISSED AS ABATED)
5 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, BY THE COMPLAINANTS,
PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE ACCUSED HEREIN AND TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION
FOR THEIR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
07.08.2017 IN W.P.Nos.9869-9876/2016 (CS-RES) AT ANNEXURE-
A.
THESE CCCs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, ARE COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, B. VEERAPPA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In both these contempt petitions, as the claimants, accused
and the relief sought for are one and the same, by consent of both
the parties, they are taken up together and this common order is
passed.
I - FACTS OF THE CASES
2. These contempt petitions are filed by the complainants to
take action against the accused under the provisions of Sections 11
and 12 of contempt of Courts Act for wilful disobedience of the
interim order dated 7.8.2017 made in W.P. Nos.9869-9879/2016 by
the learned Single Judge on I.A.2/2016 modifying the earlier order
dated 10.3.2016 and restrained the Aircraft Employees House
6 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
Building Co-operative Society Ltd., (for short, hereinafter referred
to as 'the Society') not to make any allotment or execute sale deeds
without following the seniority list of its members as approved by
the concerned Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
3. It is alleged in the contempt petitions that after service of
notice, the Society-accused appeared through its advocate and in
the month of July 2016, filed a detailed statement of objections
along with an application - I.A.2/2016 seeking vacation of interim
order dated 10.3.2016. After hearing the parties, the learned
Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 7.8.2017 modified the
earlier order and restrained the respondent-society from making
any allotment/execution of sale deed without following the seniority
list of its members as approved by the concerned Registrar of
Cooperative Societies. It is further alleged that inspite of the said
interim order, accused No.1 without obtaining approval of the list of
seniority of its members from the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies has executed Sale Deed dated 7.3.2020 in favour of one
Uma Mahesh M. (Though he was arrayed as accused No.2, later
was deleted vide order dated 28.7.2022) and in turn, accused-2
7 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
alleged to be the Member of the Society sold the same in favour of
accused No.3 (earlier Lokesha H., who was arrayed as accused was
subsequently, deleted vide order 28.7.2022) under a registered
Sale Deed dated 13.10.2020 as well as site No.1A in favour of
Narayanappa under a registered Sale Deed dated 7.3.2020. It is
further contended that accused No.1 - Sri S. Sadashivappa had
signed as witness to another Sale Deed executed in respect of
Layout formed by the Society in favour of a person not being a
member of the Aircraft Employees House Building Co-operative
Society Ltd., in violation of the interim order, dated 7.8.2017 which
was subject matter of the Contempt Petition No. 488/2020.
II - OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ACCUSED
4. In response to the notice issued, the accused filed
separate objections in both the contempt petitions with common
averments contending that it was the understanding of the Society
as well as accused No.1 that the operation of the interim order
dated 7.8.2017 was only limited to the scope of writ petition, which
only pertains Kudlu-Singasandra Layout. However, without
conceding, even assuming, if due to inadvertence or misconstruing
the interim order dated 7.8.2017, if this accused has violated the
8 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
said interim order, he tenders unconditional and unqualified apology
before this Court and undertakes to take corrective steps in
accordance with law. Accordingly, he raised the dispute under
Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act before the concerned
Registrar or would approach the Civil Court for declaration of the
said sale transaction as void. It is further contended that the
contempt petition is barred by limitation since the interim order is
passed on 7.8.2017, sale deed is executed on 7.3.2020 and
contempt petition is filed after one year and as such, the contempt
petitions have to be dismissed as barred by limitation. As accused
No.1 was authorised by the Society to execute the sale deed and to
do other incidental acts, he cannot be held solely liable in punitive
proceedings for undertaking a ministerial act which is done at the
behest of the Society. Admittedly, the interim order is limited to
Kudlu-Singasandra Layout and therefore, as accused have not
executed any sale deed in the said layout, they also filed an
application seeking clarification of the interim order dated 7.8.2017
made in Writ Petition Nos. 9869-9876/2016 and until adjudication
of the same, it is contended that the present petitions are not
maintainable and the complainants have not come to the court with
9 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
clean hands. It is further contended that accused No.1 was
authorised by the Society to execute the sale deed and he is merely
an authorised signatory of the said Co-operative Society. The role
and responsibilities of the accused forthcoming from the extracts of
the Board of Resolution dated 12.12.2017 are only limited for
execution of sale deed and to do other incidental acts. It is further
contended that the Society before proceeding with sale of the sites,
had sought for legal opinion as to whether the interim order dated
7.8.2017 would come in their way of disbursing the sites in any
other layout other than Kudlu - Singasandra Layout and the legal
opinion dated 28.2.2020 which they had obtained was that the
interim order pertains only to Kudlu - Singasandra layout and would
not affect the transaction, etc., and as such, sought for dismissal of
contempt petitions.
5. This court by the separate orders, dated 27.7.2022 in both
the contempt petitions, after hearing both the parties, held that the
complainants have made out a case to frame charge against the
accused which has reached finality.
10 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
6. In pursuance of the said order, this Court framed the
charges on 28th July, 2022 against accused No.1 - Sri S.
Sadashivappa and accused No.4 - B.H. Balaji.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainants,
complainant No.1 - M. Shashidharan examined himself as C.W.1 in
both cases i.e., CCC 430/2021 and 429/2021 and was cross-
examined. In order to disprove the case of the complainant,
accused No.1 - S. Sadashivappa examined himself as D.W. 1 in
both the cases and was cross-examined.
8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
III - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED HCGP ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
9. Sri Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader,
who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in view of
Rule 11 of Contempt of Court (Contempt Of Court Proceedings)
Rules, would contend that accused No.1 has violated the interim
order dated 7.8.2017 made in Writ Petition Nos. 9869- 9876/2016
where it was specifically made clear that any further allotment to be
11 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
made by the Society would be only on the basis of the seniority list
of its members of the Society approved by the concerned Registrar
of Co-operatives and it was further made clear that pending
disposal of the writ petitions, respondent No.3/Society shall not
make any allotment/execute sale deed without following the
seniority list of its members as approved by the concerned
Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
10. The learned Amicus Curiae would further contend that
without following the seniority list of its members as approved by
the concerned Registrar of Co-operative Societies, accused No.1
has alienated site Nos.1 and 1A 'C' Block measuring 30 x 40 feet
under the registered Sale Deeds dated 7.3.2020 in favour of
accused No.2 and one Narayanappa and the said sites belongs to
the Society is not in dispute. It is his specific contention that
inspite of having the knowledge of the interim order, the accused
have proceeded to alienate the sites and the only defence taken by
them is that they have not violated the interim order. He further
contended that admission of D.W.1 in his cross-examination that
his signatures found at Serial Nos.8 and 11 in the resolutions dated
12 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
22.9.2017 and 20.2.2023 respectively are one and the same and it
clearly depicts that accused No.1 has participated in the
proceedings as admitted by him and as the accused have admitted
execution of the said two sale deeds, they are liable to be punished
under the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
He would further contend that in view of the provisions of Section
2(b) and Section 12(5) explanation-A of the Contempt of Courts
Act, the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the
accused are not applicable to the present case there is difference in
the definition of 'Company' under the provisions of Section 141(2)
explanation A of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 12(5)
Explanation A of the Contempt of Courts Act and as the present
cases fall under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, the
Co-operatives Societies Act 1959 is applicable.
11. The learned Amicus Curiae would further contend that
Section 2(11) of the Companies Act envisages that "body
corporate" or "corporation" includes a company incorporated
outside India, but does not include a co-operative society registered
under any law relating to co-operative societies. Thereby the
13 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
accused have alienated the property in question in both the
contempt proceedings in violation of the interim order and hence,
sought to punish the accused in accordance with law.
IV - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR
COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
12. Per contra, Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel
along with learned Counsel Miss. Deepika Joshi for accused No.1
without disputing the interim order passed by the learned Single
Judge restraining respondent No.3-Society from making any
allotment/execution of sale deeds without following the seniority list
of its members as approved by the concerned Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, contended that Section 12(4) of the Contempt
of Courts Act contemplates that where the person found guilty of
contempt of court in respect of any undertaking given to a court is
a company, every person, who, at the time the contempt was
committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company
for the conduct of business of the company, as well as the
company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the
punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the court, by the
14 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
detention in civil prison of each such person, but until Company or
Society or its Directors are not made as party to the contempt
petition, the present contempt petitions are not maintainable. He
would further contend that not only arraying Co-operative Society
as party to the proceedings, but also there must be specific
allegations against its Officers/Directors. He would further
contend that except arraying accused No.1, who was authorised to
execute the sale deed in accordance with law, all the Directors of
the Society, who passed the Resolution are not arrayed as parties
to the contempt proceedings, and therefore, the very contempt
petitions, are not maintainable.
13. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that as
admitted by C.W.1 in his cross-examination that as per the
provisions of Section 20 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies
Act, the present contempt petitions are not maintainable in view of
the fact that interim order was passed on 7.8.2017, Sale Deed
executed on 7.3.2020 and after a lapse of 1 year 3 months, the
present contempt petitions are filed on 14.6.2021. Further that
accused No.1 by producing Exs.D.1, 2, 3, 4 has done only the
15 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
postman duty on the authorisation of the Society and no contempt
is made out against accused. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the
contempt petitions.
14. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel for
the accused relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of The Bengal Secretariat Co-operative Land Mortgage
Bank and Housing Society Ltd. -vs- Sri Aloke Kumar and Another
in Civil Appeal No.7261/2022 to the effect that "....it is well
established position that once a member becomes a member of the
Co-operative Society, he loses his individuality in the Society and
he has no independent rights except those given to him by the
statute or bye-laws. The members have to speak through the
Society or rather the Society alone can act and speak for him qua
the rights and duties of the Society as a body. He also relied upon
the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Thalappalam Ser. Co-operative Bank Ltd., and Others -vs- State of
Kerala and Others in Civil Appeal 9017/2013 to the effect that
Societies which were concerned therein, fell under the later
category that is governed by the Societies Act and are not statutory
16 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
bodies, but only body corporate within the meaning of Section 9 of
the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act having perpetual succession
and common seal and hence have the power to hold property, enter
into contract, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings
and to do all things necessary for the purpose, for which it was
constituted. Further Section 27 of the Societies Act categorically
states that the final authority of a society vests in the general body
of its members and every society is managed by the managing
committee constituted in terms of the bye-laws as provided under
Section 28 of the Societies Act. Therefore, as the Society or its
Directors are not made as parties to the contempt petitions, the
present contempt petitions are liable to be dismissed as they are
not maintainable.
15. The learned Senior Counsel for the accused further relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil
Hada -vs- Indian Acrylic Ltd reported in 2000(1) SCC 1 particularly
paragraphs - 12 and 13 wherein it is held as under:
"12. Thus when the drawer of the cheque who
falls within the ambit of Section 138 of the Act is
17 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
a human being or a body corporate or even firm,
prosecution proceedings can be initiated against
such drawer. In this context the phrase "as well
as" used in sub-section (1) of Section 141 of the
Act has some importance. The said phrase would
embroil the persons mentioned in the first
category within the tentacles of the offence on a
par with the offending company. Similarly the
words "shall also" in sub-section (2) are capable
of bringing the third category persons additionally
within the dragnet of the offence on an equal par.
The effect of reading Section 141 is that when
the company is the drawer of the cheque such
company is the principal offender under Section
138 of the Act and the remaining persons are
made offenders by virtue of the legal fiction
created by the legislature as per the section.
Hence the actual offence should have been
committed by the company, and then alone the
other two categories of persons can also become
liable for the offence.
13. If the offence was committed by a company it
can be punished only if the company is
prosecuted. But instead of prosecuting the
company if a payee opts to prosecute only the
18 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
persons falling within the second or third
category the payee can succeed in the case only
if he succeeds in showing that the offence was
actually committed by the company. In such a
prosecution the accused can show that the
company has not committed the offence, though
such company is not made an accused, and
hence the prosecuted accused is not liable to be
punished. The provisions do not contain a
condition that prosecution of the company is sine
qua non for prosecution of the other persons who
fall within the second and the third categories
mentioned above. No doubt a finding that the
offence was committed by the company is sine
qua non for convicting those other persons. But if
a company is not prosecuted due to any legal
snag or otherwise, the other prosecuted persons
cannot, on that score alone, escape from the
penal liability created through the legal fiction
envisaged in Section 141 of the Act."
Another judgment in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal -vs- Central
Bureau of Investigation reported in 2015(4) SCC 609, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court at paragraphs-40 to 43 has held as under:
19 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
"40. It is abundantly clear from the above that
the principle which is laid down is to the effect
that the criminal intent of the "alter ego" of the
company, that is the personal group of persons
that guide the business of the company, would be
imputed to the company/corporation. The legal
proposition that is laid down in the aforesaid
judgment in Iridium India case [Iridium India
Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc., (2011) 1 SCC 74 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1201] is that if the person or
group of persons who control the affairs of the
company commit an offence with a criminal
intent, their criminality can be imputed to the
company as well as they are "alter ego" of the
company.
41. In the present case, however, this principle is
applied in an exactly reverse scenario. Here,
company is the accused person and the learned
Special Magistrate has observed in the impugned
order that since the appellants represent the
directing mind and will of each company, their
state of mind is the state of mind of the company
and, therefore, on this premise, acts of the
company are attributed and imputed to the
appellants. It is difficult to accept it as the correct
20 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
principle of law. As demonstrated hereinafter,
this proposition would run contrary to the
principle of vicarious liability detailing the
circumstances under which a Director of a
company can be held liable.
(iii) Circumstances when Director/person in
charge of the affairs of the company can also be
prosecuted, when the company is an accused
person
42. No doubt, a corporate entity is an artificial
person which acts through its officers, Directors,
Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a
company commits an offence involving mens rea,
it would normally be the intent and action of that
individual who would act on behalf of the
company. It would be more so, when the criminal
act is that of conspiracy. However, at the same
time, it is the cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability
unless the statute specifically provides so.
43. Thus, an individual who has perpetrated the
commission of an offence on behalf of a company
can be made an accused, along with the
company, if there is sufficient evidence of his
21 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
active role coupled with criminal intent. Second
situation in which he can be implicated is in those
cases where the statutory regime itself attracts
the doctrine of vicarious liability, by specifically
incorporating such a provision."
Accordingly, sought to dismiss the present contempt petitions.
V - POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
16. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned
Counsel for the parties, the points that would arise for our
consideration in the present contempt petitions are:
1. Whether inspite of having the knowledge of
the interim order, dated 7.8.2017 passed in
Writ Petition Nos. 9869- 9876/2016
accused No.1 and 4 proceeded to execute
the Sale Deed, dated 7th March, 2020 in
favour of accused No.2-Uma Mahesha M
and 13.10.2020 in respect of very site
No.1, 'C' Block in favour of Sri Lokesha H.,
in different survey numbers of Begur Village
measuring East to West 30 ft., and North to
South 40 ft.?
22 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
2. Whether the complainants have made out a
case to punish the accused under the
provisions of Section 12 of the contempt of
courts act?
VI - CONSIDERATION
17. We have given our anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and
perused the entire material on record carefully.
18. It is the specific case of the complainants that inspite of
the interim order dated 7.8.2017 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 9869-
9876/2016 on I.A.2/2016 restraining the 3rd respondent - Co-
operative society i.e., Aircraft Employees House Building Co-
operative Society Ltd., represented by its Secretary, from making
any allotment or execution of sale deeds without following the
seniority list of its members as approved by the concerned
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, accused No.1 - Sri S.
Sadashivappa, Executive Director, executed a Sale Deed, dated 7th
March, 2020 as representative of the Aircraft Employees House
Building Co-operative Society Ltd., in favour of one Sri Uma Mahesh
23 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
M., for a valuable sale consideration and in turn, Sri Uma Mahesha
M., further executed a Sale Deed dated 13.10.2020 in favour of Sri
Lokesha H., (though both Uma Mahesha M and Lokesha, who were
arrayed as parties to the contempt proceedings, were deleted by
the order, dated 28.7.2022 and one Sri B.H. Balaji, Secretary to the
Aircraft Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., was
impleaded vide order, dated 21.10.2021).
19. It is also not in dispute that the 3rd respondent - Aircraft
Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., represented
by its Secretary filed an application - I.A.2/2016 seeking vacation of
the interim order earlier granted on 10.3.2016 contending that the
Society being under an obligation to take up new project for the
formation of layouts for allotment of sites to its members has
undertaken the task and though several contentions were urged in
the application stating that no illegalities have been committed, but
on the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the
complainants that allotment of sites would be made without
considering seniority list of the members would be addressed, if it
was made clear that any further allotment to be made by
24 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
respondent/Society could be only on the basis of seniority list of
members approved by the concerned Registrar of Cooperative
Societies, considering the contention of the learned senior counsel
for the Society that, the Society has undertaken the task of
formation of layouts in different areas and if allotment of sites even
in those areas is prevented, it would affect the Society and its
members seriously, the learned Single Judge after hearing both the
parties, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case
and also the interest of the petitioners as well as respondent-3-
Society and its members, was of the view that the interim order
dated 10.3.2016 deserves to be modified. Accordingly, passed the
following order:
"it is made clear that pending disposal of these
writ petitions, respondent No.3 - Society shall
not make any allotment/execution of sale deeds
without following seniority list of its members as
approved by the concerned Registrar of Co-
Operative societies."
Thereby it was made clear that the interim order was granted
restraining respondent No.3-Society i.e., Aircraft Employees House
Building Co-operative Society Ltd., from making any
25 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
allotment/executing sale deeds without following the seniority list of
its members as approved by the concerned Registrar of Co-
operative Societies. It means it pertains to all the layouts formed
by the Society and not for any specific layout. Thereby the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel for accused No.1 that
alienations made do not pertain to the layout in question in the writ
petition, but it is concerned to other layouts, cannot be accepted.
If that is the contention raised by the accused, there was no
necessity for the 3rd respondent- Aircraft Employees House Building
Co-operative Society Ltd., to file an application seeking for
modification of the earlier interim order. Infact, in the application,
it was specifically averred that Society has undertaken the task of
formation of layout in different areas and if allotment of sites even
in these areas is prevented, it would affect the Society and its
members seriously. Thereby, the interim order dated 7.8.2017
prohibits 3rd respondent-Society from allotting or executing sale
deeds without following the seniority list of its members as
approved by the concerned Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
26 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
20. Even in the objections filed by the accused No.1, he has
virtually admitted that without conceding, even assuming if due to
inadvertence or mis-construing of the interim order 7.8.2017 made
in Writ Petition Nos.9869-9876/2016 by the Society, the accused
have violated the said interim order, they are tendering
unconditional and un-qualified apology before this Court and
undertake to take corrective steps, in accordance with law either
under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 before the
concerned Registrar or approach Civil Court for declaring said sale
transaction as void, but no such documents are produced before the
Court for taking such corrective steps. Thereby the accused have
not disputed the execution of the sale deed as per Ex.C.3
Annexure-H in favour of Uma Mahesha on 7th March, 2020 in
respect of site No.1, 'C' Block situated in several survey numbers
Beguru Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and
subsequent sale deed 13.10.2010 by his vendor as per Annexure-
H1 in favour of one Sri Lokesha H., in respect of said site No.1, 'C'
Block situated in several survey numbers Beguru Village, Beguru
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk which belongs to the Aircraft
Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. It is also not
27 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
in dispute that the accused No.1/Sri S. Sadashivappa, who is
examined as D.W.1 has admitted that he got the opinion from the
advocate marked as Ex.D.6 and as per the said document, he had
participated in the proceedings as per the Resolution dated
22.9.2017 and his name is found at Sl.No.8 in the resolution where
there is a reference to the interim order 7.8.2017 passed by the
learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition Nos.9869-9876/2016
as well as in the Resolution dated 20.2.2020 at Sl.No.11. Thereby,
inspite of knowing the interim order granted, he ought to have
opposed the resolutions in order to obey the interim order passed
by this Court on 7.8.2017, but no such efforts have been made by
the accused.
21. Complainant No.1 examined as C.W.1 specifically
deposed about passing of the interim order by this Court on
7.8.2017 and the alienation made by the accused on 7.3.2020 in
respect of site Nos.1 and 1A, 'C' Block, situated in different survey
numbers and Villages. Accordingly, he has produced the interim
orders dated 7.8.2017 marked as per Ex.C.1 and 10.3.2016 marked
as Ex.C.2 and certified copies of the Sale Deed dated 7.3.2020
28 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
marked as Ex.C.3, the order sheet in CCC No.488/2020 marked as
Ex.C.4 and also the order sheet in Writ Petition Nos.9869-
9876/2016 marked as Ex.C.5.
22. In the cross-examination C.W.1 admitted that it is true
Aircraft Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., is
represented by its Secretary-accused No.3. He also admitted that
he has not made the Society or its Office Bearers as parties to the
present contempt petition and he was not aware whether the
committee had authorised accused No.1 to register the sites. He is
also not aware whether in the Board Resolution dated 30.12.2019,
the Executive Committee had authorised the accused to execute the
sale deeds in favour of accused No.2. Further he was not aware
whether accused No.1 received sale consideration in pursuance of
the sale deed dated 7.3.2020 and accused No.1 might have done
alienation on the decision taken by the Committee. He also admits
that he had filed separate contempt proceedings against the office
bearers of the Aircraft House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., in
CCC No.488/2020 for violation of the interim order dated 7.8.2017
with regard to some other survey numbers. In his cross-
29 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
examination by the learned Counsel for accused No.4, C.W.1 has
specifically stated that he is not aware whether accused-4 was
party to the sale transaction between accused No.1 and accused
No.2 and also not aware whether accused No.2 re-transferred the
property in favour of accused No.3 and whether accused No.3 was a
party to the said transaction. He had given instructions to his
lawyer to file the present contempt petitions and at the time of
filing the same, two sale deeds dated 7.3.2020 and 30.3.2020 were
with him and in the said sale deeds, there was no role of accused
No.4/Sri B.H. Balaji. In the entire evidence of C.W.1 as well as in
contempt petitions, the allegation is only against accused No.1.
Therefore, filing of the contempt petitions against accused No.4
cannot be sustained.
23. Though learned Senior Counsel for accused No.1
contended that as the Society is not made as a party in the
contempt proceedings, the contempt petitions are barred by
limitation and are not maintainable against accused No.1 and in
support of his contentions, he placing reliance on the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Hada -vs- Indian
30 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
Acrylic Ltd reported in 2000(1) SCC 1 and also in the case of Sunil
Bharti Mittal -vs- Central Bureau of Investigation reported in
2015(4) SCC 609 cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that, the
said judgments are arising under the provisions of Sections 138 and
141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Admittedly, the interim
order passed by the learned Single Judge on 7.8.2017, accused
No.1 has executed the Sale Deed dated 7.3.2020 in favour of
accused No.2, who in turn sold in favour of accused No.3 under the
registered Sale Deed dated 28.7.2022 in respect of the property in
dispute. But the present contempt petitions are filed on 9.11.2021
and as there is continuous cause of action arising in the present
contempt proceedings, question of limitation as alleged would not
arise.
24. The admitted facts in the present cases are that accused
No.1/Sri S.Sadashivappa is the Executive Director representing
Aircraft Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., #15,
1st Cross, C.K.C. Garden, Opposite to Bangalore Institute of
Oncology Hospital, K.H, Road (Double Road), Bangalore-27 and he
is the person, who executed the sale deed, dated 7th March, 2020
31 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
as per Ex.C.3 which clearly depicts that the "Aircraft Employees
House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.," is the Vendor and the
address as has been shown in the cause title to the contempt
petitions as well as in the sale deeds are one and the same, and it
is represented by accused No.1 as its Executive Director specifically
stating that the Vendor has purchased the lands of various survey
numbers for valuable sale consideration in the favour of members
of the Society and they have received a sum of Rs.86,400/- as sale
consideration from the purchaser and the said sale deed is signed
by the accused as Aircraft Employees House Building Co-operative
Society Ltd., #15, 1st Cross, C.K.C. Garden, Opposite to Bangalore
Institute of Oncology Hospital, K.H. Road (Double Road), Bangalore
as Executive Director (Vendor). The same is not disputed by
accused No.1 either in examination-in-chief or cross-examination.
The interim order dated 7.8.2017 passed on I.A.2/2016 in Writ
Petition Nos. 9869-9876/2016 alleged to have been violated by
accused No.1-Society, had filed an application seeking vacation of
the interim order urging that "Society has undertaken task of
formation of layouts in different areas and if allotment of sites even
in these areas is prevented, it would affect the Society and its
32 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
members seriously." Inspite of such contention, the learned Single
Judge proceeded to pass the interim order on 7.8.2017 restraining
the Society/respondent No.3 in the writ petitions from making any
allotment/execution of sale deed without following the seniority list
of its members as approved by the concerned Registrar of Co-
operative Societies. Admittedly, the said order is binding on the
parties to the writ petitions wherein, the Society was a
party/respondent No.3 represented by its Secretary. Very
strangely, the accused have taken a contention in the present
contempt petitions that they have not violated the interim order,
and at the same time, are also not disputing the fact of execution of
the sale deed dated 7.3.2020 as per Ex.P.3 on behalf of the Aircraft
Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., for having sold
and violated the interim order, and as such, they cannot now take
the hot and cold contention.
25. In the entire contempt proceedings, it is not the case of
accused No.1 that he is not aware of the interim order passed by
this Court on 7.8.2017 restraining the Society from making any
allotment/execution of Sale Deed without following the seniority list
33 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
of its members as approved by the concerned Registrar of
Cooperative Societies. Very strangely, he has taken the specific
plea in his examination-in-chief as well as in the statement of
objection that he was appointed as Executive Director on
12.12.2017 and the Board of the Aircraft Employees House Building
Co-operative Society Ltd., has passed unanimous resolution on the
same day to alienate two sites and he was authorised to execute
the sale deed on behalf of the Society as per Ex.D.3., and one of
the defence taken is that he has acted as postman. Being the
Member and Executive Director of the Aircraft Employees House
Building Co-operative Society Ltd., he ought to have opposed such
resolution as admitted by him in the objections. It is also stated in
the objection that the Society had obtained the legal opinion as per
Ex.D.6 and if this Court comes to the conclusion that there is
violation of the interim order, the accused would tender
unconditional and un-qualified apology and would take necessary
corrective steps to obey the interim order passed by this Court.
Accused No.1 also admits that he came to know about the interim
order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 9869-9876/2016
dated 7.8.2017 only when he received notice from this Court in CCC
34 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
No.488/2020 filed against him. Admittedly, he has not produced
any document to prove that he has taken corrective steps to get
the Sale Deeds set aside before the competent Civil Court. In view
of the above, the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel for the accused is in no way assistance to the accused.
26. The provisions of section 2(b) r/w 12(4) of the Contempt
of Courts Act clearly depicts that 'civil contempt' means that wilful
disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or
other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to
a Court. Section 12(4) of the Act clearly depicts where the person
found guilty of contempt of court in respect of any undertaking
given to a Court is a Company, every person who, at the time the
contempt was committed, was in-charge of, and was responsible to
the company for the conduct of business of the company, as well as
the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the
punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the Court, by the
detention in civil prison of each such person. Sub-section (5) of
Section 12 clearly depicts that Notwithstanding anything contained
in Sub-section (4), where the contempt of court referred to therein
35 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
has been committed by a company and it is proved that the
contempt has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or
it is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any Director,
Manager, Secretary, or other Officer of the Company, such Director,
Manager, Secretary or other Officer shall also be deemed to be
guilty of the contempt and the punishment may be enforced, with
the leave of the Court, by the detention in civil prison of such
Director, Manager, Secretary or other Officer. Admittedly, in the
present cases, accused No.1 being Executive Director executed the
Sale Deed on 7.3.2020 representing the Aircraft Employees House
Building Co-operative Society Ltd., and received sale consideration
in violation of the interim order dated 7.8.2017 made in Writ
Petition Nos.9869-9876/2016, and thereby as he was in-charge, he
was responsible in executing the sale deed on behalf of the Society.
Therefore, he is liable to be punished.
27. Though the Aircraft Employees House Building Co-
operative Society Ltd., consists of President, Secretary, Executive
Directors, other Directors and Officer Bearers, who form part of the
Society and the some of the aggrieved members of the Society had
36 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
filed writ petitions before this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 9869-
9876/2016 against the Society represented by its Secretary seeking
the relief therein and the learned Single Judge of this Court at the
first instance on 10.3.2016 granted an interim order restraining the
Society from making any allotment of sites as on that date and
subsequently, on the application-I.A.2/2016 filed on behalf of the
Society seeking vacation of the said interim order, this Court by the
order dated 7.8.2017 modifying the earlier interim order dated
10.3.2016 restrained the accused-Society from making any
allotment/execution of sale deed without following the seniority list
of its members as approved by the concerned Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, inspite of contention raised on behalf of the
Society that the Society has undertaken task of formation of layouts
in different areas and if allotment of sites even in these areas is
prevented, it would affect the society and its members seriously.
The said order has reached finality. Thereby, the Society was
restrained from making any allotment/execution of sale deeds
without following the seniority list of its members as approved by
the concerned Registrar of Co-operative Societies in respect of
layouts formed by the Society in different areas and it is binding on
37 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
the President, Secretary, Executive Directors, Directors and other
Office Bearers of the Society.
28. Inspite of knowing the interim order passed by this
Court, the President and Directors in order to grab money have
adopted dubious method and have executed Sale Deed one by the
President of the Society, who was authorised by the other Office
Bearers of the Society in respect of Site Nos.355-A and 355-B
Chikkanahalli -Kammanahalli village under the registered Sale
Deeds dated 3.3.2020 and 7.3.2020 by the other Directors under
different Sale deeds by the President, Secretary, Executive
Directors and other Directors. It is relevant to state at this stage,
that the very complainants filed a contempt case in CCC No.
488/2020 against the President and the Directors of the Society
wherein the present accused No.1 was also arrayed as accused
No.3 in the said contempt petition and this Court by the order dated
20th April, 2023 convicted the accused persons for wilful
disobedience of the interim order dated 7.8.2017 including accused
No.1 and others.
38 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
29. The office bearers of the Society knowing fully well the
interim order dated 7.8.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court adopted dubious method in passing resolutions to
alienate the sites in favour of third parties without following the
seniority list of its members as approved by the concerned
Registrar of Co-operative Societies and have taken the contentions
as has been done in the present contempt petitions that the other
Office Bearers are not made as a parties, which clearly depicts that,
the Office Bearers of the Society had decided to execute the Sale
Deeds by alienating the sites formed by the Society in favour of
different persons on different occasions by the different Office
Bearers of the Society i.e.,
i) President;
ii) Secretary; and
iii) Executive Director; and
iv) Other Office Bearers individually.
Thereby the office bearers by using different tactics have alienated
the sites of the Society and have made profit at the cost of the
other members of the Society and after obtaining legal opinion are
39 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
stating that they have not violated any interim order passed by this
Court. The fact remains that the learned Single Judge after
hearing both the parties and considering the material on record, by
the interim order dated 7.8.2017 at paragraph-5 has observed that
"during the course of the arguments by the learned Senior Counsel
that the Society has undertaken the task of formation of layouts in
different areas and if allotment of sites even in these areas is
prevented, it would affect the society and its members seriously."
Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and also
the interest of the petitioners as well as the Society and its
members, learned Single Judge modified the earlier interim order
dated 10.3.2016 as under:
"It is made clear that pending disposal of these
writ petitions, respondent No.3 Society shall not
make any allotment/ execution of sale deeds
without following the seniority list of its
members as approved by the concerned
Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Interim
order passed on 10.3.2016 is accordingly,
modified".
40 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
This Court after hearing the learned Counsel for both parties, by the
order dated 21.7.2022 held that the accused/Sri S. Sadashivappa,
being Executive Director of the Society, in violation of the interim
order proceeded to execute the sale deed dated 7.3.2020 on behalf
of the Society in favour of accused No.2 Accordingly, it was held
that claimants have made out a case to frame charge against the
accused. Accordingly, this Court by the order 28th July 2022
framed the following charges against the accused No.1 as under:
"We, ................., do hereby charge you, accused
No.1,
SRI. S. SADASHIVAPPA
S/O SANNAMARABOVI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
LTD.,NO.15, 1ST CROSS, C.K.C.
GARDEN,OPPOSITE TO BANGALORE
INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL, K.H.
ROAD (DOUBLE ROAD),
BANGALORE - 560 027.
as follows:
That you, in violation of the modified
interim Order dated 07.08.2017 in W.P.Nos.9869-
9876/2016 directing the respondent No.3-Society
41 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
not to make any allotment/execution of sale
deeds without following the seniority list of its
members as approved by the concerned Registrar
of Co-operative Societies, have sold the Site
bearing No.1A, 'C' Block, situated at Sy.
Nos.148/2, 149/7, 149/8, 151/1, 151/2, 151/2A,
153/1 and 158 of Begur Village, Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, Bengaluru in favour of
accused No.2 - N. Narayanappa under the
registered sale deed dated 07/03/2020
(Annexure-H). Thereby you have deliberately
violated the modified interim order passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court, within the
meaning of the provisions of Section 2(b) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under
Section 12 of the said Act, within the cognizance
of this Court.
And we hereby direct that you be tried by
this Court on the said charge.
Dated, this the 28th day of July, 2022."
Though a contention was raised by the learned Senior Counsel for
the accused that the scope of the writ petition pertains only to
Kudlu Singasandra Layout and not for the layout formed in Beguru
42 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
village and therefore, there is no violation, the said contention
cannot be accepted in view of the fact that, there is no dispute that
the Society formed four layouts in different villages and the dispute
raised under Section 68 of the Co-operative Society Act before the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies is in respect of entire Society
and interim prayer sought by the complainants in the writ petitions
was for a direction to the accused-Society not to allow/transfer any
site formed in any layout by the Society to any person including its
members until the seniority list of its members seeking allotment of
sites from the Society is prepared by the rules.
30. It is also not in dispute that modifying the earlier interim
order, this Court granted an interim order on 7.8.2017 and inspite
of knowing well about modification of the interim order, the Society
passed four resolutions and authorised accused No.1 as the
Executive Director of the said Society, who proceeded and executed
the sale deed dated 7.3.2020 under Ex.C.3 in the capacity of the
Executive Director of the Society and in utter violation of the
interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It is
also not in dispute, that accused No.1 alone has executed the sale
43 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
deed by signing each and every page as Executive Director on
behalf of the Society.
31. In the statement of objections dated 17.9.2021 at
paragraph-1, it is stated that if this Court comes to the conclusion
that accused No.1 has violated the interim order, he would tender
an unconditional and unqualified apology which clearly shows his
admission of alienation made by him in violation of the interim
order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is well settled that the
litigants approach this Court in contempt proceedings after
completion of all other reliefs as a last resort. When a contempt
petition is filed alleging disobedience, it is the duty of the Court to
verify on the basis of the records after giving an opportunity to the
accused persons whether they have violated the order of the Court
or not. After careful perusal of the entire record, it clearly depicts
that accused No.1 has executed a Sale Deed dated 7.3.2020 as per
Ex.C.3 in utter violation of the interim order passed by the learned
Single Judge and willfully disobeying the interim order granted by
this Court.
44 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
32. It is also not in dispute the complainants are members of
the Society and like others, they have also become members of the
said Society with hope and trust that they would be benefited from
the Society and the Society was formed with an intention to protect
the interest of the members of the Aircraft Employees House
Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Admittedly, both the
complainants and the accused are employees of M/S Hindustan
Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Society was formed with an object to
ensure protection of all employees of HAL. With a fond hope of
getting a site by their hard earned money out of their employment,
the complainants and others have enrolled as members of the
Society. Though accused No.1 and other Office Bearers of the
Society are also employees of the said Society, merely because
they become President, Secretary, Executive Directors and
Directors of the Society, they cannot cheat other members of the
Society by using dubious method and passing inappropriate
resolutions against the interest of the members of the Society at
large and cannot make money at the cost of other genuine
members. That was not the intention of the founding fathers of
Aircraft Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. It is
45 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
well settled that the Society is a trustee of its members. It cannot
ditch by the so-called President, Secretary, Executive Director and
Other Directors, who are also basic members of the Society. The
complainants have come to the Court in the present contempt
petition with great expectation treating the Court as Devine and
today the Temple of Judiciary is repository of public faith. It is the
last hope of the people that after every knock at all the doors failed,
people approach judiciary as the last resort. It is the only temple
worshipped by every citizen of the nation regardless of religion,
caste, sex, or place of birth. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court
to protect the interest of the litigants in accordance with law.
VII - CONCLUSION
33. For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered
opinion that the charge framed against accused No.1 is proved
beyond reasonable doubt and charge made against accused No.4 is
not proved. Accordingly, we answer point raised in the present
contempt petitions partly in the affirmative holding that the
complainants have made out a case that accused No.1 has violated
the interim order dated 7.8.2017 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 9869-
46 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
9876/2016 and inspite of knowing the said interim order dated 7th
August, 2017 executed Sale Deed in favour accused No.2 and
further complainants have made out a case to punish the accused
No.1 under the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts
Act.
VIII - RESULT
34. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The contempt petitions are hereby allowed in part;
ii) Accused No.1 is liable to be convicted for
contempt of court order punishable under the
provision of Section 12(1) of the Contempt of
Courts Act and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of two months with
fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only)
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a further period of fifteen
days;
iii) The contempt proceedings initiated against
accused No.4 - Sri B.H. Balaji are hereby dropped
as being devoid of any merit;
47 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
iv) Registrar Judicial is directed to prepare and issue
warrant of commitment and detention in respect
of accused No.1 in Form No.3 as contemplated
under Rule 16(1) of the High Court of Karnataka
(Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rule, 1981
forthwith;
v) The services rendered by the learned HCGP, who
was appointed to assist the Court on behalf of
the complainants and to arrive at this conclusion
is appreciated and placed on record;
vi) High Court legal Services Committee is directed
to pay an honorarium of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand Only) to the learned HCGP
forthwith.
ORDERS ON I.A.
At this stage, learned Counsel for accused No.1 files an
application under Section 19(2) of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 r/w Section 389(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for suspension of sentence fo a period of eight
weeks. since this Court has passed an conviction order
against accused No.1.
48 CCC 430.21 cw 429.21
Accepting the cause shown in the affidavit
accompanying the application, I.A. is allowed and sentence
imposed against accused No.1 is hereby suspended for a
period of 8 weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Nsu/-
