TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment 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 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code against all the accused and in addition to this a prima facie case Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 109 Indian Penal Code and 25 of Arms Act against Balbir @ Bali, a prima facie case Under Section 307 Indian....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il 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 Bal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 Court who also appear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5, 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. 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 resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctors 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 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....015 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 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 pol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng 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 po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isted 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 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 cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mself. 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 Anr. (1991) 2 All ER 398. 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 con....