Page 1

1 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.374 OF 2014

IN  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1834 OF 2013

Sita Ram     ……Petitioner

Versus

Balbir @ Bali                          …. Respondent

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit J.

1. This petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘Act’)  highlights  willful  and  deliberate

violation of the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2013 passed by this Court

in  Criminal  Appeal  No.1834  of  2013 and  seeks  initiation  of  appropriate

proceedings under the Act.

Page 2

2 2. The petitioner, original  informant  in  FIR No.141 dated  06.05.2011

with  Police  Station  Kalanaur,  District  Rohtak,  Haryana  for  offences

punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code read

with Section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, was the appellant in

Criminal  Appeal  No.1834  of  2013  assailing  the  Order  dated  11.02.2013

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  granting  bail  to  the

respondent.   While setting aside the Order granting bail, this Court in its

Judgment and  dated 24.10.2013 observed as under:

“4. ……………  In  the  FIR,  the  Appellant/Informant  has stated  that  Respondent  No.1  fired  upon  his  brother-in-law Vishnu from his revolver and thereafter Sombir also fired upon Vishnu.   The  other  persons  mentioned  also  opened  fire indiscriminately leading to firearm injuries on several persons who were at the shop of the Appellant/Informant at that fateful time. ……………………………….

5. ………………………. Respondent No.1 is indubitably a very influential person in the area, at the time of the incident he was an ex-MLA.  Section 109 and Section 149, as envisaged under the IPC have been cited.  By Orders dated 23.1.2013, the Addl. Sessions Judge has, on a perusal of the police report and material documents, found existence of a prima facie case under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, 307 read with Sections 149, 323 read with Section 149 IPC against all the accused and in addition to this a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC, 109 IPC and 25 of Arms Act against Balbir @ Bali, a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC against Naresh and Rishi, a prima facie case under Section 25 of Arms Act against Dinesh @ Kala and Sunil and a prima facie case under Section 27 of Arms Act.

6. Keeping all  these factors  in  perspective,  especially  the wide-scale injuries suffered by several persons, there is a strong

Page 3

3 prima facie case of the involvement of the Respondent No.1 in the alleged crimes.   Moreover, the antecedents  of Respondent No.1  are  such  that  a  reasonably  strong  apprehension  of  his tampering with witnesses or leveling of threats is imminent and omnipresent.   The  severity  of  the  attack  should  not  be overlooked.   For  these  manifold  reasons,  we  set  aside  the impugned Order dated 11.2.2013, allow the Appeal and cancel the  bail  granted  to  Respondent  No.1  who  shall  surrender  to custody forthwith.”

3. Thus, while setting aside the Order granting bail, this Court took into

account the role played by the respondent in firing upon the deceased and

the  fact  that  he  was  an  influential  person  in  the  area  with  criminal

antecedents.  In keeping with direction to surrender to custody forthwith, it

was  expected  of  the respondent  to  do the  needful.   However, the record

indicates otherwise and shows attempts to evade execution of consequential

non-bailable warrants issued from time to time leading to delays in trial.

The  Orders  passed  by  the  Trial  Court  on  20.11.2013,  05.02.2014,

15.03.2014, 16.04.2014 and 14.05.2014 bear testimony in that behalf,  which

Orders were as under: 20.11.2013

“Present:  Shri  A.S.  Kadian,  Public  Prosecutor  for  the State assisted by Shri R.K. Sehgal, counsel for the complainant.

Accused  Sunil  and  Ajay  in  custody,  whereas  all  the remaining accused except accused Balwan alias Balli on bail, with Shri O.P. Chugh, Shri Surinder Verma, Advocates.

Accused Balwan absent.

Page 4

4

Three  PWs namely  Sita  Ram,  Ram Chander  and Ram Mehar are present, but their statements could not be recorded as warrant of arrest issued against  accused Balwan not received back either executed or unexecuted and an application seeking exemption  of  accused  Balwan  alias  Balli  from  personal appearance  for  today  along  with  affidavit  of  his  son  and photocopy of the Special Criminal Review Petition, has been moved.  Heard.  Perused.   Since there is no stay granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case and further more bail of accused-applicant Balwan had already been cancelled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, thus there is no merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed and fresh warrant of arrest of accused Balwan be issued, 7.12.2013.  PWs present today stand discharged and would be summoned after procuring the presence of accused Balwan.

Since there is non-compliance of the issuance of warrant of arrest  against  accused Balwan in view of the Order dated 24.10.2013  as  passed  by  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  of  India, therefore, notice be given to SHO, Police Station Kalanaur as to why warrant of arrest of accused Balwan alias Balli have not been sent back to this court either executed or unexecuted, for 7.12.2013.”

05.02.2014

“Present:  Shri  A.S.  Kadian,  Public  Prosecutor  for  the  State. Accused Ajay in custody, whereas all the remaining accused on bail  except  accused  Balwan,  with  counsel  Shri  O.P. Chugh, Advocate…………………………

Warrant  of  arrest  of  accused  Balwan  received  back unexecuted.  Now fresh warrant of arrest of accused Balwan be issued through SP Rohtak for 15.03.2014.  Notice to surety and identifier of accused Balwan alias Bali be also issued for the date fixed.”  

15.03.2014

Page 5

5

“Present : Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the State. Accused Ajay in custody, whereas all the remaining accused on bail except accused Balbir alias Bali.

Warrant  of  arrest  of  accused Balbir  alias Bali  received back  unexecuted.   Now  fresh  non-bailable-warrant  against accused  Balbir  alias  Bali  be  issued  through  SP  Rohtak  for 16.4.2014.  Notice to his surety and identifier be issued through SHO concerned for the date fixed.  

  16.04.2014

“Present: Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the State. Shri O.P. Chugh, counsel for accused Rohtas and Balbir @ Bali. Accused Ajay in custody while all  the remaining accused on bail except accused Balbir @ Bali…………………….

An  application  has  been  moved  on  behalf  of  accused Balbir @ Bali in which it is stated that accused Balbir @ Bali has filed Curative Petition No.12576/2014 in the Hon’ble Apex Court  and  hence,  intimation  is  being  submitted  before  the Court.  Since warrant of arrest have already been issued against accused Balbir @ Bali, hence, the filing of the application on behalf  of  accused  is  of  no  consequence.   The  non-bailable warrant which was issued against Balbir @ Bali received back unexecuted  and  the  report  is  perused.   Fresh  non-bailable warrant  be  again  issued  against  Balbir  @  Bali  and  be  sent through Superintendent of Police, Rohtak with the direction that the same be executed through some responsible police officer for 14.5.2014.”

14.05.2014

“ Present Shri Surender Pahwa, Public Prosecutor for the State.   

Shri O.P. Chugh, counsel for the accused Balbir @ Bali. Accused Ajay in custody while all  the remaining accused on bail except accused Balbir @ Bali.

Page 6

6 Non-bailable  warrant  issued  against  accused  Balbir  @

Bali  received  back  unexecuted.   Even  the  bailable  warrant issued against surety has not been executed.  Report perused.  It appears that State is not making serious efforts for execution of the  warrant  of  arrest.   Hence,  fresh  non-bailable  warrant  be issued against accused Balbir @ Bali and the same be sent to a Superintendent of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak for execution with  the  direction  to  get  the  same  executed  through  some responsible officer of the police for 07.07.2014.  Fresh bailable warrant against surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- be also issued for the next date of hearing.”

4. These Orders passed by the Trial Court show that although witnesses

for prosecution were present to record their statements on 20.11.2013, no

statements could be recorded in the absence of the accused.   Further, on

subsequent dates the accused in custody was produced but the respondent

consistently remained absent.  Though he was represented by his Advocate,

the record does not indicate whether the whereabouts of the respondent were

disclosed. In these circumstances, the present  petition was filed in which

notice was issued by this Court on 29.08.2014.  Since the respondent could

not be served, fresh notice was ordered to be issued on 27.10.2014 to be

served through the District  Judge,  Rohtak.   The compliance report  dated

15.01.2015  was  forwarded  by the  District  Judge,  Rohtak  whereafter  this

Court passed the following Order on 19.01.2015:

“In the present contempt petition also the respondent has failed to enter appearance despite service of a notice issued by this Court.  Our attention is drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner  to  an  Order  dated  14.05.2014  passed  by  the  Trial

Page 7

7 Court  who  also  appear  to  have  issued  non-bailable  warrants against  respondent  No.1  which  warrants  also  remain  to  be unserved despite several  efforts.   Be that as it  may from the service  report  dated  14.01.2015  submitted  to  this  Court  it appears that respondent No.1 is admitted to the hospital for the past 15 months.  No medical certificate to that effect is however available on record.  In the circumstance we deem it fit to direct the Senior  Superintendent  of  Police,  Rohtak Range to  verify whether  the  statement  made  by  Amit  Kumar  son  of  the respondent  regarding  admission  of  respondent  No.1  in  the hospital is factually correct and to file a report before this Court regarding his medical condition if he is indeed admitted to the hospital anywhere in the State of Haryana”.

5. Accordingly Mr. Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police, Rohtak

submitted an affidavit on 16.02.2015,  stating that son of the respondent in

his statement recorded on 8.02.2015 had stated that his father was admitted

in  Privat  Hospital,  Gurgaon  and  that  said  son  also  produced  Medical

Certificate  dated  7.02.2015  to  that  effect.  After  verifying  the  fact,

instructions  were  issued  to  keep close  watch  and take  the  respondent  in

custody upon his discharge.  The Medical Certificate dated 07.02.2015 was

annexed to the affidavit and the Certificate reads as under:-  “PRIVAT HOSPITAL DR. SACHDEV PVT. LTD. DLF PHASE-II, M.G. ROAD, GURGAON-122002, INDIA.

Date:07.02.2015

MEDICAL CERTIFICATE

Certified that Mr. Balbir Singh is admitted in Privat Hospital since 11.04.2014 with diagnosis of

Page 8

8 An o/c of Ischaemic Heart Disease With Angioplasty done twice in past With hypertension With COPD and Acute Examination With Anxiety with Acid Peptic Disorder And GIRD.

He  has  improved  significantly,  symptomatically  and  no intervention was done during the hospitalization. He is likely to be discharged in next 5-7 days…….”

   6.  The matter was taken up on 24.04.2015 when the Counsel for the

State  produced  copies  of  Medical  Certificates  dated  11.04.2014  and

26.03.2015.  The Certificate dated 26.03.2015 stated that the respondent was

fit to be produced in a Court of Law but it did not indicate whether he was

discharged, and if not discharged, the reason for his continued admission.

This Court, being prima facie of the view that the Hospital was providing

medical asylum to the respondent to avoid arrest, ordered as under:-  “……………….. We are in the circumstances inclined to direct  the  personal  presence  of  the  Superintendent  of Police,  Rohtak,  and  Dr.  Munish  Prabhakar,  Medical Director,  Privat  Hospital,  Gurgaon,  who  shall  file  an affidavit and explain why:

(1) Respondent No.1 has not been taken into custody despite an order of  arrest  and medical  certificate dated 26th March, 2015 issued by the hospital which declares him asymptomatic. (2) The  hospital  has  not  formally  discharged respondent  No.1  if  he  is  otherwise  fit  and  does  not require any further hospitalization. (3) The Medical  Director  shall  also  place  on record details about the medical bills raised against respondent

Page 9

9 No.1  from the  date  of  his  admission  till  date  and  the amount paid towards the same by the patient or anyone on his behalf.  

7. Pursuant to the Order dated 24.04.2015 an affidavit was filed by Dr.

Munish  Prabhakar,  Medical  Director,  Privat  Hospital,  Gurgaon  on

02.07.2015. Relevant portions of paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit

were as under:-

“5. The patient had improved significantly symptomatically but  required  Angiography/Thallium  scan  for  further management  but  never  gave  consent  for  that.   He  always refused consent and wanted conservative treatment.    During the stay he was told many times  that  he  can be discharged  but kept  on delaying the decision for being discharged.  He was not making  payments  for  his  medical  bills.   He  had  kept  on assuring the hospital that he will clear all the medical bills but kept  on  paying  small  amounts  and  promising  balance  of payment soon.  

6. It is submitted that on 13.02.2015, the police officials at PS Kalanaur, Dist. Rohtak, Haryana had informed the Hospital that the hospital may inform the SHO, Kalanaur Police Station, Rohtak, whenever the Hospital discharges this patient………

7. Subsequently,  the  Police  official  from Kalanaur  Police Station, Rohtak vide his communication dated 15.03.2015 inter alia, requesting the Hospital to opine whether this patient can be produced in the Court of Ld. ADJ, Rohtak.

8. In response  to his  communication dated 15.03.2015 of the Rohtak Police, the Hospital had clearly informed them on 16.3.2015 that the patient Mr. Balbir Singh is fit to be produced in the Court.  The further details of his treatment in the Hospital with a Certificate were also issued on 26.03.2015.  …….. The police officials from Rohtak by his communication dated 1.5.15

Page 10

10 had requested  the  Hospital  to  issue  a  discharge  slip.   While respectfully  reiterating  that  from  15.3.15  itself  the  police officials of Rohtak Police had been clearly told by the Hospital that  this  patient  is  fit  to  be  taken  to  the  Court  where  he  is required, the Hospital once again acceded to the request of the Rohtak Police and also issued a Discharge Slip on the same day, i.e., 01.05.2015.  ………..”

The affidavit went on to state that the Hospital was not aware of any

direction  to  the  respondent  to  surrender  to  custody  which  he  had  not

complied with and that the respondent had cleverly continued to stay in the

Hospital.

8. Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police, Rohtak filed his affidavit

dated  02.07.2015  in  which  developments  subsequent  to  the  filing  of  the

earlier affidavit were detailed in paragraphs 6 to 13:- “6. It  is  further  submitted  that  on  21.02.2015,  the  S.H.O. Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak,  Haryana along with other police officials of the Police Station went to the above said hospital to arrest accused Balbir @ Bali but doctors of the above said hospital refused to discharge the accused Balbir @ Bali.  In this regard DDRs No.9 and No.38 dated 21.02.2015 were  recorded by the  SHO Police  Station Kalanaur, Rohtak, Haryana.

7. That it is pertinent to mention here that on 21.02.2015, 27.02.2015 and 25.03.2015 Sh.  Pawan Kumar, HPS,  Deputy Superintendent  of  Police,  Rohtak  had  also  telephonically contacted  Mr. R.  N.  Sharma,  Administrative  Officer  and  Dr. Prabhakar, Medical Director of the said hospital and requested them to discharge the accused Balbir @ Bali but no positive response was provided by the hospital authorities.  

Page 11

11 8. That accused Balbir @ Bali through his counsel served a legal  notice  dated  20.03.2015  upon  SHO  Police  Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana and Deputy Superintendent of  Police,  Rohtak,  Haryana  (Supervisory  Officer  of  Police Station Kalanaur) calling upon them not to harass him, who is a patient and further, if any harassment is caused they shall  be personally responsible for the same.  In the said notice it was mentioned that accused Balbir @ Bali, who was under regular treatment  and was  unable  to  appear  in  the  court,  was  being unnecessarily harassed by the police.  

9. That  on  25.03.2015,  the  S.H.O,  of  Police  Station Kalanaur,  District  Rohtak,  Haryana  along  with  other  police officials of the Police Station had gone to Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev  Pvt.  Ltd.,  Phase-II,  M.G.  Road,  Gurgaon  to  arrest accused Balbir @ Bali who was declared Proclaimed Offender in  case  FIR  No.141  dated  06.05.2011  under  Sections 148/149/323/325/307/302/109/114  IPC  &  25  of  Arms  Act, Police  Station  Kalanaur,  District  Rohtak,  Haryana  but  the doctors of the said hospital again refused to discharge accused Balbir @ Bali under the pretext that his treatment was going on and intimation shall be given within two days after completing his  treatment.   The  S.H.O.,  Police  Station  Kalanaur,  District Rohtak  before  going  and  after  returning  recorded  the  DDR No.12 dated 25.03.2015 at 8.20 AM and DDR No.42 at 10.20 PM  mentioning  all  these  details  therein  at  Police  Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana.  

10. That notwithstanding the issuance of medical certificate dated  26.3.2015  by  Privat  Hospital  Dr.  Sachdev  Pvt.  Ltd. Gurgaon,  Haryana,  the  concerned  hospital  authorities intentionally did not discharge the accused Balbir @ Bali from the hospital for reasons known to them.  It is further mentioned that the doctors of the said hospital orally advised the police not to arrest the accused as it may put his life in jeopardy/or danger.

11. That owing to the prevarication on part of authorities of Privat  Hospital,  a  request  was  made  to  the  Chief  Medical Officer (CMO), Gurgaon, Haryana by the S.H.O. Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak, Haryana through ASI Mahabir Singh

Page 12

12 No.222/RTK  of  the  said  Police  Station  for  constituting  a Medical Board to give opinion whether the accused Balbir @ Bali who is getting treatment in the said hospital can be arrested from the hospital in the said situation by getting his physical condition  and  if  not,  then  to  provide  the  medical  team  of Doctors to accompany the police for bringing him to Rohtak so that  he  may  be  produced  before  the  learned  Court  in  the supervision of Doctors.   

12. That the authorities of Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon failed to formally discharge the accused Balbir @ Bali from the hospital despite several visits of the local police. Due to non-cooperation of Privat Hospital authorities, accused Balbir @ Bali could not be taken into custody despite an Order of arrest.  It is further submitted that the Chief Medical Officer, Gurgaon  also  refused to  provide an Ambulance  and team of Doctors  in  whose  supervision  accused  Balbir  @  Bali  i.e. respondent  No.1  could  be  brought  to  Rohtak  and  produced before the learned Court of concerned Magistrate, Rohtak.  The local police tried its level best to arrest the accused by making sincere efforts but due to the above said circumstances, it could not succeed in arresting accused Balbir @ Bali i.e. respondent No.1.

13. That on 01.05.2015, accused Balbir @ Bali was formally discharged  by the  hospital  authorities  and  thereafter,  he  was immediately arrested and produced before the learned Court of concerned Magistrate, Rohtak, Haryana, on very same day by a team of  police  officials  headed  by  Sh.  Pawan  Kumar,  HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohtak.  The learned Court issued direction to the police that “before taking him to central jail,  accused  shall  be  medicolegally  examined  and  if  the Medical  officer  examing  the  accused  feels  any  necessity  of retaining him in the hospital, then it is for him to decide.  In compliance of  Order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the learned Court  of  ACJM,  Rohtak,  the  accused  was  brought  before Medical Officer of PGIMS, Rohtak, who after examining the accused  admitted  him  in  ICCU  vide  CR  No.342761  dated 01.05.2015  for  evaluation,  investigation,  treatment  and monitoring.  The accused Balbir @ Bali remained admitted in

Page 13

13 PGIMS,  Rohtak  from  01.05.2015  to  12.05.2015.   That  on 12.05.2015,  accused  Balbir  @  Bali  was  discharged  from PGIMS, Rohtak and is since in District Jail, Rohtak, Haryana.”

9. The matter was thereafter  taken up on 08.07.2015  when this Court,

with a  view to find out whether the Hospital had become party to attempts

of the respondent to prevent the law from taking its course, passed following

Order:-    “………From  the  versions  presented  to  us  about  the

circumstances in which respondent-Balbir continued to evade arrest by the police on account of his prolonged admission to the hospital, we are prima facie of the view that an appropriate enquiry  is  called  for  in  order  to  bring  the  truth  to  light especially with a view to finding out whether the hospital had become a privy to the attempt of the respondent to somehow prevent  the  law  from  taking  its  course.  The  fact  that  the respondent remained admitted to the hospital concerned for a long period without so much as paying the amount claimed by the hospital shows that the admission of the respondent to the hospital may not have been an innocent act. We do not for the present wish to say anything further at this stage lest it causes prejudice to any party. All that we need mention is that, in our opinion,  the  appropriate  course  would  be  to  direct  a  proper inquiry into the circumstances in which the respondent-Balbir continued to avoid arrest and escape from the long arms of law with or without the help of the hospital concerned.  

We accordingly direct the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation  (CBI)  to  suitably  nominate  a  senior  officer  to conduct  an  inquiry  into  the  circumstances  in  which  the respondent was admitted to the Privat Hospital Dr. Sachdev Pvt. Ltd.  and  also  to  report  whether  there  was  any  criminality attached to the action of the management of the hospital or on the  part  of  the  doctors  concerned  in  granting  a  prolonged admission to the respondent with the object of protecting the respondent from being arrested and committed to jail. We hope and  trust  the  officer  concerned  completes  the  inquiry

Page 14

14 expeditiously and submits a report to this Court within a period of two months from today…….. ”

10.    An  enquiry  was  accordingly  conducted  by  Shri  S.S.  Kishore,

Superintendent of Police, CBI, New Delhi. In his report dated 18.09.2015 he

summarized the matter as under:- “(4). Summary of the Enquiry Report is as follows:

(a)   Accused  Balbir  Singh  is  a  heart  patient  and  had undergone  a  treatment  at  Medanta  Hospital,  Gurgaon  as  an indoor patient from 4.9.2013 to 10.9.2013 and as an outdoor patient on 17.9.2013 and 18.10.2013 i.e. prior to cancellation of his bail by this Hon’ble Court.

(b) After  this Hon’ble Court  cancelled the bail  of  accused Balbir Singh on 24.10.2013, the accused got himself admitted in the said Hospital on 15.11.2013.

(c) Accused  Balbir  singh  remained  admitted  in  the  said Hospital  for  a  total  527  days  on  three  occasions  viz.  from 15.11.2013  to  25.12.2013  for  41  days,  from  31.12.2013  to 9.04.2014 for 100 days and from 11.04.2014 to 1.05.2015 for 386 days, respectively.

(d) Accused  Balbir  Singh  did  not  give  his  consent  for Angiography as suggested by the doctors during his admission in the said Hospital, and requested for Conservative Treatment through medicines which was agreed to by the doctors.  

(e) Accused  Balbir  Singh  was  not  required  to  remain admitted  in  the  said  Hospital  for  such a  long period for  the Conservative Treatment which he was given in said Hospital as confirmed by Dr. Munish Prabhakar, the Consultant Physician of the said Hospital.

(f) There was no change in the condition of accused Balbir Singh from 12.06.2014 to  1.12.2014 necessitating  him to  be kept as indoor patient as is evident from the table given at Para

Page 15

15 3 (ii) (c ) at Page No.5 of this Enquiry Report, still he was kept in the said Hospital for no reason.

(g) No  laboratory  tests  were  conducted  during  the  period from  25.02.2014  to  12.04.2014  and  from  12.04.2014  to 01.5.2015 which indicate that neither illness of accused Balbir Singh was serious nor treatment given to him was intensive.

(h) There was no cogent  ground for  which accused Balbir Singh was allowed to  move out  of  the  said  Hospital  for  47 times  during  the  admission  in  the  said  Hospital.  Rather  it establishes that he was fit to move freely and was not required to be kept as indoor patient.

(i) There was no justification for the continued admission of accused Balbir Singh in the said Hospital from 11.04.2014 to 1.05.2015 i.e. for 386 days.

(j) Accused  Balbir  Singh  remained  admitted  in  the  said Hospital without any payment for the first 274 days during his third  admission  as  he  was  admitted  in  the  said  Hospital  on 11.04.2014 and he made the first payment of Rs. 50,000/- only on 10.01.2015.

(k) The  administration  of  said  Hospital  kept  the  accused admitted for financial gains as they were getting approximately Rs. 9,500/- per day.

(l) Accused Balbir Singh made full payment of his first and second admission bills in said Hospital, but paid only a part of his dues for his third admission bills.

(m) Filing of complaint case against accused Balbir Singh in the  Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurgaon u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 20.07.2015 for dishonour of cheque of  Rs.  5,00,000/- and filing of a suit  against  accused Balbir  Singh  on  13.08.2015  in  the  Court  of  Civil  Judge, Gurgaon  for  recovery  of  remaining  bill  amounting  to  Rs. 29,58,459/-  (Twenty  Nine  Lakh  Fifty  Eight  Thousand  Four Hundred  and  Fifty  Nine)  appear  to  be  afterthoughts  of  the

Page 16

16 administration of the said Hospital as these have been filed after the Order dated 8.07.2015 of this Hon’ble Court.

(n) The said Hospital on more than one occasion informed Rohtak Police in writing that accused Balbir Singh was fit to be taken to Court but did not discharge him.

(o) It  appears  that  Rohtak  Police  came  to  know  about accused Balbir  Singh being admitted in  the said Hospital  on 8.02.2015, but arrested the accused only on 1.05.2015.

(p) The stand  of  Rohtak Police  that  accused could  not  be arrested as he was not discharged by the said Hospital does not hold substance.

(q) Certain inconsistencies have been found in the affidavit filed by Rohtak Police. The details are mentioned in Para 3 (x) at Page Nos. 12 and 13 of this Enquiry Report.”

11. The Enquiry Report also dealt with the efforts made by local police to

locate and arrest the respondent and reported as under:- “(viii).  NBWs and Efforts made by local police to locate and arrest accused Balbir Singh

This  Hon’ble  Court  had  rejected  the  bail  of  accused Balbir  Singh  on  24.10.2013  and  directed  him  to  surrender forthwith. Accused Balbir Singh did not comply with the Order of this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, the Trial Court of Additional Sessions  Judge,  Rohtak,  Haryana issued various non-bailable warrants of arrest against accused Balbir Singh on 08.11.2013, 21.11.2013, 02.01.2014, 12.2.2014, 19.03.2014, 18.04.2014 and 15.05.2014 which were returned unexecuted by PS Kalanaur. None of the execution report mentioned about any enquiry from family members of the accused or his whereabouts. It was also revealed that some of the entries made in the General Diaries of PS Kalanaur  in  connection  with  the  efforts  for  arresting  the accused Balbir Singh do not correspond with the respective log books of vehicles.”

Page 17

17

12. After considering the Enquiry Report, this Court was prima facie of

the opinion, that notice was required to be issued to Dr. K.S. Sachdev, why

he should not  be punished for  committing contempt of  court.  The Order

dated 19.11.2015 passed by this Court dealt with the matter as under:- “………………We have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and are of the view that a notice of show cause ought to issue  even  to  Dr.  K.S.  Sachdev  who  happens  to  be  the Managing Director of Privat Hospital  Dr. Sachdev Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon.  A notice  shall  accordingly  issue  asking  Dr.  K.S. Sachdev  to  show cause  why  he  should  not  be  punished  for committing  contempt  of  this  Court  in  as  much  as  from the material placed on record, it appears that Balbir Singh accused in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2011 was harboured by the Hospital run by the Company of which he is the Managing Director for a considerable  period and prima facie  without  any justification and only with a view to preventing his arrest and committal to jail  pursuant  to  the Orders passed by this  Court  in  Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2013 the Orders passed by this Court in Criminal  Appeal  No. 1834 of 2013 dated 24.10.2013. Notice shall  be  directed  to  the  Station  House  Officer  to  the Jurisdictional Police Station for service upon Dr. K.S. Sachdev.

………………. Mr. Shashank Anand, S.P. shall also file his  reply  affidavit  to  the  contempt  petition  as  also  the preliminary  report  within  three  weeks  from  today  with  an advance  copy  to  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  who will have one week thereafter to respond to the same.”

13. Accordingly, Shashank Anand, Superintendent of Police, Rohtak filed

his  affidavit  dated  07.12.2015  submitting  that  he  took  charge  as

Superintendent of Police, Rohtak on 24.11.2014. He stated that the fact that

Page 18

18 the respondent had not surrendered despite cancellation of his bail by this

Court  was  brought  to  his  knowledge  for  the  first  time  on  12.01.2015,

whereafter  the  matter  was  entrusted  to  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police,

Meham, Rohtak.  He further stated that he became aware of the admission of

the  respondent  in  Privat  Hospital,  Gurgaon  on 16.02.2015.  He thereafter

undertook steps to ensure that the respondent did not escape and deployed a

guard  at  the  hospital  since  16.02.2015  right  till  01.05.2015  when  the

respondent was finally discharged from the hospital.  The affidavit further

stated that soon after the enquiry report of CBI a fact finding probe to fix the

responsibility/negligence/ connivance on part of police officials who dealt

with process of service of non-bailable warrant against the respondent was

undertaken.  Pursuant to the enquiry report dated 07.12.2015, vide Memo

Nos.2145, 2146, 2147 and 2148 all dated 07.12.2015, necessary action was

recommended against certain police officials.

14. A reply affidavit was also filed by Dr. K.S. Sachdev on 07.01.2016.  It

was  submitted  that  the  hospital  came  to  know  that  the  respondent  was

required in a criminal case only on 13.02.2015.  However, the affidavit did

not disclose why even after 13.02.2015 the respondent-contemnor was not

discharged.  The affidavit stated that after it received a communication from

Rohtak  Police  dated  15.03.2015  to  get  the  respondent  examined  by  a

Page 19

19 Medical Board, that the hospital on 16.03.2015 furnished a fitness report to

Rohtak Police declaring the respondent to be fit to be produced in court of

law.  The affidavit further stated that for reasons best known to them the

police did not  take  the  respondent  from the hospital  despite  such fitness

report  and  the  respondent  was  finally  discharged  after  letter  dated

01.05.2015  seeking  his  discharge  was  received  from  the  police.   The

affidavit stated that no police official came to the hospital seeking custody of

the respondent  and that  the hospital  had not  refused to  comply with the

request of the police at any stage.  It further stated: “The  prolonged  admission  happened  as  the  accused trapped  the  Hospital  by  not  paying.   There  was  no criminality on part of hospital as it was totally unaware of his criminal status before 13.02.2015.   The  hospital did  not  keep  him as  he  was  paying  Rs.9,500/-  to  the hospital,  it  was non- payment of this amount that gave him  prolonged  stay  and  he  very  cleverly  used  this position that  for the fear  of  losing money, the hospital will not discharge him and he trapped the hospital very cleverly being a wily politician.”

15. We heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.

Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Shashank

Anand,  Superintendent  of  Police,  Mr. Dushyant  A.  Dave,  learned Senior

Advocate for Dr. K.S. Sachdev and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior

Advocate for Dr. Munish Prabhakar.

Page 20

20 16. From the record and the Enquiry Report as stated above, it is clear that

soon after the Order dated  24.10.2013 passed by this Court, the respondent

remained admitted in the Hospital for a total of 527 days.  Nothing has been

placed on record, nor any medical condition or reasons have been  adverted

to why such admission was required in the first  place.   As found in the

Enquiry, no laboratory test was conducted during the period of admission

from 25.02.2014 to 12.04.2014 and from 12.04.2014 to 01.05.2015.  This

shows that the illness as projected was not serious at all and no intensive

treatment  as  indoor  patient  was  required  or  called  for.   This  prolonged

admission without any justifiable medical reason was essentially to defeat

the direction issued by this Court in its Order dated 24.10.2013 and repeated

non-bailable warrants issued by the Trial Court.

17. The Order passed by the Trial  Court  on 20.11.2013 shows that  an

affidavit  of son of the respondent was filed along with a copy of review

petition.  The application seeking exemption was rejected by the Trial Court

and SHO concerned was issued notice why the warrant of arrest was not

executed.  Subsequent Orders dated 05.02.2014, 15.03.2014, 16.04.2014 and

15.04.2014  indicate  that  fresh  warrants  of  arrest  were  issued  through

Superintendent of Police.  Neither the respondent surrendered to custody as

directed by this Court nor the concerned police took any steps to arrest him

Page 21

21 or try to find his whereabouts.  No report was made to the Trial Court. What

is  evident  is  total  inaction  on  the  part  of  the  police  which  helped  the

respondent  in evading the arrest  and defeating the Orders passed by this

Court as well as by the Trial Court.  This callous attitude and conduct of the

police calls for strict administrative actions and corrective penal measures.   

18. The conduct exhibited by the respondent in getting himself admitted

in the hospital when there was no medical reason to justify such admission

and in continuing  to remain admitted till action was taken by this Court in

contempt jurisdiction, exhibits scant respect and regard for the orders and

processes issued by the Court. Despite issuance of notice, the respondent has

neither filed any response nor tendered any apology.  Having gone through

the record and considered the Enquiry Report, we have no doubt that the

respondent is guilty of having committed contempt of the direction issued by

this  Court  in  its  Order  dated  24.10.2013  and  also  in  obstructing  the

administration of justice.

19. We now turn to the role of the hospital and medical professionals. The

explanation offered by Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev was that

they were not  aware of  any direction by this  Court  to  the respondent  to

surrender to custody or that the respondent was required in connection with

Page 22

22 any crime.  At the outset, it must be stated that the respondent stood admitted

in the hospital for 527 days.   Not a single laboratory test was conducted

during the period from 15.02.2014 to 01.05.2015.  The papers produced on

record  do  not  in  any  way  suggest  any  medical  emergency  which  could

justify continued admission of the respondent as an indoor patient.  Further,

during  the  third  admission  of  the  respondent  from  12.04.2014  the  first

payment to the hospital was made only on 10.01.2015 i.e. nearly after 247

days.  It is inconceivable that in normal circumstances a man, who has no

ailment or a medical condition requiring emergency treatment would be kept

as indoor patient without any laboratory test and  without recovering a single

paisa for more than 247 days.   Moreover, the record indicates that on as

many as 47 occasions during his admission the respondent was allowed to

move  out  of  the  hospital  without  even  an  endorsement  by  any  medical

professional justifying such movement.  The Enquiry Report further shows

that there used to be regular stream of visitors during the stay of respondent

in the hospital.    These features clearly show that the respondent  was in

perfect  condition  of  health  and  never  really  required  admission  in  the

hospital as an indoor patient.  The role of the hospital was certainly not as

innocent as is sought to be projected and the features detailed above clearly

Page 23

23 show that the hospital was  party to the attempts on part of the respondent to

defeat the Order passed by this Court.

20. When the compliance report forwarded by the District Judge, Rohtak

on 15.01.2015 indicated admission of the respondent in a hospital, this Court

by Order dated 19.01.2015 called for a report from the Superintendent of

Police, Rohtak.  The enquiry initiated thereafter resulted in recording of the

statement  of  son  of  the  respondent  on  08.02.2015  who  also  produced

medical  certificate  dated  07.02.2015.   This  certificate  issued  by  Privat

Hospital shows that the respondent was likely to be discharged in next 5 to 7

days.  Significantly, said certificate was not even referred to in any of the

subsequent affidavits filed by Dr. Munish Prabhakar or Dr. K.S. Sachdev.  If

the  respondent  was  likely  to  be  discharged  in  few  days  as  certified  on

07.02.2015  what  went  wrong  in  not  discharging  him  or  was  there  any

medical emergency justifying his continued admission?  Nothing is spelt out

in any of the affidavits.  As a matter of fact, the subsequent certificate dated

26.03.2015  did  not  even  speak  of  likelihood  of  discharge  and  used  the

expression “………he is fit to be produced in the Court of law as per present

health condition.”  The assertions made by Shashank Anand in his affidavit

dated 02.07.2015 are that notwithstanding issuance of such certificate dated

26.03.2015,  the  hospital  refused  to  discharge  the  respondent  and  orally

Page 24

24 advised the police not  to arrest  the respondent lest  it  may put his life in

jeopardy or  danger.  The Enquiry Report  rightly  observed “……the said

hospital on more than one occasion informed Rohtak Police in writing that

accused Balbir Singh was fit to be taken to court but did not discharge him.”

It  was  only after  this  Court  passed the Order dated 24.04.2015 directing

personal  presence  of  Dr.  Munish  Prabhakar  with  a  direction  to  file  an

affidavit  and  explain  the  situation,  that  the  hospital  discharged  the

respondent on 01.05.2015 which then resulted in arrest and production of the

respondent.  

21. The explanation offered by Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. Sachdev

that the respondent trapped the hospital and by non-payment of the bills kept

prolonging his stay in the hospital does not inspire confidence at all.  If the

hospital was really a victim of the machinations of the respondent, at the

first opportunity i.e. when requisition was made by the police on 13.02.2015,

the  hospital  would  have  responded  immediately.   The  requisition  dated

13.02.2015  had  informed  the  hospital  that  respondent  was  a  proclaimed

offender and that his custody was required.  This requisition was close on the

heels of the medical certificate dated 07.02.2015 and if that certificate was a

correct one, the time was ripe for discharge of the respondent.  However, as

stated by Shashank Anand in his  affidavit  dated 02.07.2015,  the hospital

Page 25

25 refused  to  discharge  the  respondent.   The  theory  that  the  hospital  was

trapped by the designs of the respondent is a mere eye-wash and we reject

the  same.  Thus,  the  inescapable  conclusion  is  that  the  hospital  extended

protection and asylum to the respondent to defeat the Order passed by this

Court  as  well  as  those passed  by the  Trial  Court  and thereby obstructed

administration of justice.

22. Dr. Munish Prabhakar has been Medical Director of the hospital and

as submitted by learned Senior Counsel on his behalf, he receives salary and

some percentage of consultation charges recovered from the patients.  Dr.

K.S.  Sachdev, on the other  hand, has been the Managing Director of  the

Company  which  owns  and  runs  said  hospital.  We have  found  that  the

continued  admission  for  such  a  long  period  as  indoor  patient  was  not

justifiable for any reason or medical condition of the respondent. Both these

medical professionals are responsible for such prolonged admission which

was actuated by only one reason which was to extend medical asylum to the

respondent as a cover to defeat the orders passed by this Court and the Trial

Court.  In  this  process,  these  medical  professionals  not  only  helped  the

respondent  in  violating  the  Order  of  this  court  but  they  also  obstructed

administration of justice.

Page 26

26 23.  The aforementioned conclusions then raise issues regarding the extent

of liability of the contemnors. Sections 2 (b) and 2 (c) of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 which define ‘civil contempt’ and ‘criminal contempt’ are

as under:-

“(b) “civil contempt” means willful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court; (c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii)  prejudices,  or  interferes  or  tends  to  interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii)  interferes  or  tends  to  interfere  with,  or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;”

Willful  disobedience  to  a  direction  issued  by  this  Court  on

24.10.2013 on part of the respondent is quite evident. He was party to the

proceedings and bound by the order and as such his liability on that court

stands established. Further, by his defiance of the direction so issued, he also

obstructed administration of justice. He is thus liable for committing civil

contempt  as  well  as  criminal  contempt.  But  the  Medical  Professionals

namely Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S. Sachdev were not parties to the

matter where the direction in question was passed.

Page 27

27

24. As  regards  the  liability  of  the  aforesaid  Medical  Professionals,

questions that arise are: 1) whether a person, who is not bound by a direction

issued by the Court could be held guilty for committing contempt of court

for his conduct in either directly aiding and abetting violation on part of the

person who is bound by such direction; and 2) what is the extent of liability

of such person. A.] In  Seaward v.  Paterson1  the  landlord  of  the  concerned

premises  had  obtained  an  injunction  against  Paterson  i.e.  his  tenant

restraining him from doing or allowing to be done anything on the premises

which would be a  nuisance to  the landlord and from using the premises

otherwise than for the purposes of a private club.  Alleging that the tenant

had committed contempt of the court by allowing the premises to be used for

boxing matches,  the landlord applied for committal of two other persons,

namely, Sheppard and Murray on the ground that they had aided and assisted

the tenant  in his  disobedience to the injunction.   The following passages

from the Judgment of Lindley LJ are quite instructive:

“Now, Let us consider what jurisdiction the court has to make an order against Murray. There is no injunction against him-- He is no more bound by the injunction granted against Paterson than any other member of the public. He is bound, like other members of the public, not to interfere with, and not to obstruct, the course of  justice;  and the case,  if  any, made against  him

1  (1895-99) All ER 1127

Page 28

28 must  be  this--not  that  he  has  technically  infringed  the injunction, which was not granted against him in any sense of the word,  but  that  he has been aiding and abetting others  in setting the Court at defiance, and deliberately treating the order of  the  Court  as  unworthy  of  notice.  If  he  has  so  conducted himself, it is perfectly idle to say that there is no jurisdiction to commit him for contempt as distinguished from a breach of the injunction, which has a technical meaning.”   “A motion to commit a man for breach of an injunction, which is technically wrong unless he is bound by the injunction, is one thing; and a motion to commit a man for contempt of court, not because  he is  bound by the injunction by being party to the cause, but because he is conducting himself so as to obstruct the course of justice, is another and a totally different thing. The difference  is  very  marked.  In  the  one case  the  party  who is bound by the injunction is proceeded against for the purpose of enforcing the Order of the Court for the benefit of the person who got it. In the other case, the Court will not allow its process to be set at naught and treated with contempt.”

B] In  Z Ltd.  v.  A2 the  plaintiff  had  obtained  injunction  against

certain defendants and the assets of one such defendant against whom the

injunction was granted, were held by a bank.  The bank was served with a

copy of the injunction but the concerned defendant had not yet been served.

While considering the question whether any disposal of assets belonging to

the defendant by the bank would make it liable for committing contempt of

Court, it was stated as under:

“I think that the following propositions may be stated as to the consequences  which ensue  when there  are  acts  or  omissions which are contrary to the terms of injunction. (1) The person

2 (1982) 1 All ER 556

Page 29

29 against whom the Order is made will be liable for contempt of Court if he acts in breach of the Order after having notice of it. (2) A third party will also be liable if he knowingly assists in the breach, that is to say if knowing the terms of the injunction he willfully assists the person to whom it was directed to disobey it. This will be so whether or not the person enjoined has had notice of the injunction… I will give my reasons for the second proposition  and take  first  the  question  of  prior  notice  to  the defendant.  It  was argued that the liability of the third person arose  because  he  was  treated  as  aiding  and  abetting  the defendant (i.e.  was an accessory) and as the defendant could himself not be in breach unless he had notice it followed that there  was  no  offence  to  which  the  third  party  could  be  an accessory. In my opinion this argument misunderstands the true nature  of  the  liability  of  the  third  party.  He  is  liable  for contempt  of  court  committed  by  himself.  It  is  true  that  his conduct may very often be seen as possessing a dual character of  contempt of  court  by himself  and aiding and abetting the contempt  by another, but  the conduct will  always amount  to contempt  by  himself.  It  will  be  conduct  which  knowingly interferes  with  the  administration  of  justice  by  causing  the Order of the court to be thwarted.”

C] The  extent  of  liability  of  third  party  in  such  actions  was

considered  by  the  House  of  Lords  in  Attorney  General v.  Times

Newspapers  Ltd.  and  another3.   In  that  case  the  Attorney  General  had

brought  action  against  two  newspapers  seeking  permanent  injunction

restraining them from publishing material from a book written by a person

who was formerly a member of the security service and by terms of  his

employment was bound by confidentiality which would stand breached if his

memoirs  were  published.   While  the  interlocutory  injunctions  restraining

3 (1991) 2 All ER 398

Page 30

30 publication of the material pending trial of such action was granted against

those two newspapers, three other newspapers published extensive extracts

and  summaries  of  the  book  following  which  proceedings  for  criminal

contempt against them were brought by the Attorney General.  At the trial of

those proceedings those three other newspapers were held to be guilty of

criminal contempt. Lord Brandon of Oakbrook concluded as under:

“………………The  claims  of  the  Attorney  General  in  the confidentiality  actions  were  for  permanent  injunctions restraining  the  defendants  from  publishing  what  may conveniently be called Spycatcher material. The purpose of the Millet injunctions was to prevent the publication of any such material  pending the trial of  the confidentiality actions.   The consequence of the publication of Spycatcher material by the publishers and editor of the Sunday Times before the trial of the confidentiality  actions  was  to  nullify,  in  part  at  least,  the purpose of such trial because it put into the public domain part of the material which it was claimed by the Attorney General in the  confidentiality  actions  ought  to  remain  confidential.   It follows  that  the  conduct  of  the  publishers  and  editor  of  the Sunday  Times  constituted  the  actus  reus  of  impeding  or interfering with the administation of justice by the court in the confidentiality actions.”   

D] In a separate concurring opinion Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle  

stated as under:

“I turn to consider whether there is any reason why established principle should not be applied to the situation in this case.  I do not accept the propostion that to apply established principles in the  foregoing  circumstances  would  effectively  be  to  convert every injuction from an order  in personam to an order  contra mundum.  That proposition ignores the distinction between the breach of an order by the person named therein and interference

Page 31

31 with the course  of  justice  resulting from a  frustration of  the order by the third party.”

25. In our view, the Medical Professionals namely Dr. Munish Prabhakar

and Dr. K.S. Sachdev extended medical asylum to the respondent without

there being any reason or medical condition justifying prolonged admission

of the respondent as an indoor patient as a cover to defeat the Orders passed

by this Court and the Trial Court,  as stated above and thereby aided and

assisted the respondent in violating the Order of this Court. By such conduct

these Medical Professionals have obstructed administration of justice.   

26.    We thus hold that the respondent guilty of having violated the Order

dated  24.10.2013  passed  by  this  Court  and  for  having  obstructed

administration of justice. We also hold Dr. Munish Prabhakar and Dr. K.S.

Sachdev guilty for having helped the respondent in his attempts and thereby

obstructing administration of justice. Having held so, we could straightaway

have imposed appropriate punishment under the Act. However, we deem it

appropriate  to  grant  one  more  opportunity  to  these  contemnors.  The

respondent has not filed any affidavit nor tendered an apology. At the same

time for Dr. K.S. Sachdev, Managing Director of the company that owns the

hospital is said to be 76 years of age. Considering the fact that these are

medical professionals with sufficient standing, in our view ends of justice

Page 32

32 would be met if one more opportunity is granted to them to present their

view on the issue of punishment. In the circumstances, we direct presence of

these three contemnors on January 2, 2017. The respondent is in custody and

therefore appropriate production warrant shall be issued under the signature

of Registrar of this Court ensuring presence of the respondent before this

Court. The concerned police is directed to facilitate such production of the

respondent.   The  contemnors  can  also  present  their  views  and  make

appropriate submission in writing on or before December 23, 2016.

27. Coming to the role of the police officials in the present matter, we

have already observed that the conduct exhibited by the concerned police

officials in not ensuring compliance of the Orders passed by the Trial Court

calls for strict administrative action.  The actions in that behalf have already

been  initiated  and  for  the  present  we  rest  content by  observing  that  the

disciplinary proceedings shall be taken to logical end and the guilty shall be

brought to book. We request the Director General of Police of Haryana and

the Home Secretary to look into the matter and ensure that the departmental

proceedings are taken to logical end at the earliest. The status report/action

taken report in that behalf shall be filed in this court within three months

from the date of this judgment.

Page 33

33 28.  As regards the role of Mr. Shanshank Anand, Superintendent of Police,

Rohtak, we find that he took charge as Superintendent of Police, Rohtak on

24.11.2014 i.e. well after the Order dated 24.10.2013 of this Court and after

the Orders directing issuance of non-bailable warrants against the respondent

were  passed  by  the  Trial  Court.   However,  even  according  to  his  own

affidavit,  if he became aware that respondent had not surrendered despite

cancellation of his bail and that he was admitted in Privat Hospital, Gurgaon

only in February 2015, the steps that he took after 16.2.2015 cannot strictly

be  called  actions  taken  with  reasonable  promptitude.  Even  according  to

Paras 6, 7 and 8 of affidavit dated 2.07.2015 nothing was done during the

period 27.02.2015 to 23.03.2015.  The action apparently was initiated only

after  the  Order  dated  24.4.2015  was  passed  by  this  Court.   Though  we

express dissatisfaction,  we do not deem it appropriate to carry the matter

further  as  against  him.   The notice  issued  to  him is  discharged  and  the

petition as against him stands closed.

Page 34

34 29. Ordered accordingly.   

…………………CJI. (T.S. Thakur)

…………………….J. (R. Banumathi)

…………………….J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, December 15, 2016