Supreme Court passed harsh strictures against Bombay High Court Bench
Supreme Court passed harsh strictures against Bombay High Court Bench
Full
Bench of the Supreme Court observed that the Bench of Justice K.K. Tated committed grave error of fact and law and gross
illegality by not giving any reasons while passing the order to protect the
accused .
Full
Bench also formulated guidelines for all High Courts in India while dealing
with such cases at interim stages.
While
setting aside the said order, the Full
bench observed in para 21.4 as under;
“Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error of law and also of facts in passing such an interim order of “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
Thereafter the Full Bench
formulated the guidelines for all High Courts regarding the need for reasoned
order while granting interim relief to accused. Court directed that the copy of
judgment be forwarded to all High Courts in India. [The judgment in the above
case between M/s Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State can be downloaded here]
On
12.10.2020 Supreme Court stayed the illegal interim order passed on 28.09.2020
by the Bench of Justice K.K. Tated and Justice N.R.Borkar granting unwarranted
protection to an accused in a high profile case. The order was without
mentioning any reason as to why the Bench is satisfied to grant the protection
to the accused and what is the urgency when the accused were granted bail by
the Court.
Despite pointing out
the stay of order by the Supreme Court instead of respecting said judgment of the Supreme
Court the Bench of Justice K.K. Tated on 14.10.2020 again passed the
similar unlawful order granting unwarranted relief to another absconded
accused. In fact as per the High Court roster the case of that accused was not assigned to the bench of Justice
Tated and the said accused was directed to surrender by the Supreme Court. The said case was also a high profile case
where the accused is involved in committing an offence of extortion of
Rs. 50 Crores by creating forged documents reagarding the property worth
around Rupees 10,000 Crores and involved in giving threats for
filing false cases and claims if said amount is not paid .
Constitution bench of
the Supreme Court in the case of Re: C.
S. Karnan (2017) SCC has sentenced the High Court Judge for six months
imprisonment under contempt for wilful disregard and defiance of the Supreme
Court.
In Legrand Pvt. Ltd . 2007 (6) Mh.L.J.146 it is ruled that If in spite of the earlier exposition of law by the High Court having been pointed out and attention being pointedly drawn to that legal position, in utter disregard of that position, proceedings are initiated, it must be held to be a wilful disregard of the law laid down by the High Court and would amount to civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In Badrakanta Mishra (1973) 1 SCC 446, a judge was sentenced under contempt for not following the judgment of Higher Court.It observed thus;
‘‘15. the deliberate and malafide conduct of not following the law
laid down in the previous decision undermines the constitutional authority and
respect of the High Court. ….the latter conduct has a much wider and more disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to undermine
the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court, generally, but is
also likely to subvert the Rule of Law 'and engender harassing uncertainty and
confusion in the administration of law.’’
In Rabindra
Nath Singh Vs. Pappu Yadav case (2010 (3) SCC (Cri) 165 Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that, the High Court committed contempt of Court in not
following the guidelines of Supreme Court in the concerned matter.
In Superintendent of Central Excise Vs. Somabhai Ranchhodhbhai
Patel (2001) 5 SCC 65, it is ruled that, the
misinterpretation of Supreme Court judgment is contempt on the part of said
Judge and it also reflect the poor level of understanding of a Judge.
Indian Bar Association requested Chief Justice of India
to invoke the powers as per ‘In-House-
Procedure’ and initiate criminal prosecution against Justice K. K. Tated and
also to immediately withdraw all the judicial work assigned to him.
Earlier many times Justice Tated acted in wilful disregard and defiance
of Supreme Court judgments and binding precedents of the Bombay High Court.
Justice Tated with Justice N. J. Jamadar conducted a criminal
contempt against a poor senior citizen without following the guidelines of Full
Bench of Supreme Court in Bal Thackrey's case and sentenced
the said poor ‘senior citizen’ without framing any charge of
contempt. The poor senior citizen was convicted
by relying on the overruled judgment in Pritampal's case and was sent to jail
for one day. The said case was initiated at the behest of mighty, rich
corporate.
Two complaints for sanction for criminal prosecution under
sec.220,211,219,218,192,193,466,471,474,167 r/w 120(B),34 etc of IPC are filed
before Hon’ble President of India and the complainant is going to file criminal
case as he got the deemed sanction to prosecute Justice K.K.Tated and Justice
N. J. Jamadar.
The judgment of two judge Bench in Pritam Pal's case is already overruled
by the three Judge Bench in Bal Thckrey's case(2005) 1 SCC 254 .
Furthermore Bombay High Court in Suresh Subhashrao Bhoyer Vs.
Shri Manohar S/O. Narayan Bhagat, 2012(5) ALL MR 230 had
also refused to follow the said Pritam Pal’s judgment by following observations;
“ 4. The judgment in the matter
of Pritam Pal's case(Pritam Pal Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Jabalpur, 1992 SCW 681) dated 19.2.1992 was rendered by two Honourable
Lordships of the Supreme Court, while the judgment in the matter of Pallav
Sheth (Pallav Sheth Vs. Custodian and others, AIR 2001 SC
2763 )was by the three Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court.
Consequently, no astrologer is required to comment that the later
judgment rendered by the Supreme Court by the three Honourable Judges on
10.8.2001 will only hold the field. The submissions vociferously
advanced needs only to be discarded. ”
The judgment passed by Justice K.K.Tated and N.J. Jamadar shows
that their level understanding of law is very poor and it is affecting the poor
and helpless litigants. It is shocking that the Judge of a high court who is
supposed to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen is himself involved
in violating the fundamental rights of the citizen due to lack of basic legal
knowledge. Supreme court termed it as corruption in the case of R.R. Parekh’s case (2016)
14 SCC 1.
In R.R. Parekh’s case (2016) 14 SCC 1 it
is ruled that, when any Judge passes an order in wanton breach of the mandatory
procedure then such order itself is a proof that, the said Judge acted with an
ulterior motive. No further proofs of corruption are required to remove the
Judge from his post. It is high time that the Chief Justice should not assign
him any judicial work to save the dignity of the Bombay High Court.
The recent judgment once again gave room for discussing illegalities, ignorance of law, lack of proper legal
knowledge and misuse of power by Justice
K.K.Tated in the legal fraternity .
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE:
On 28.09.2020, a petition filed by accused P. Suresh Kumar being Cri. Criminal
Writ Petition (St.) No. 2306 of 2020 came for hearing before
the Bench of Justice K.K. Tated and Justice N.R.Borkar.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi represented the Accused petitioner and Mr. Shyam
Deewan represented the complainant i.e. Respondant No.2. Actually
the assignment of the Criminal Writ Petition is with another Bench of Justice
S. S. Shinde but vide order dated 22.09.2020 Justice Shinde recused from the
case.
The reason for recusal by Justice S.S. Shinde was that Adv. Nilesh Ojha
is also appearing as a Counsel for Respondent No. 2.
On 28.09.2020 when the said matter came for hearing, the Bench of
Justice Tated straigaway granted the interim protection to the
accused without there being any urgency and without mentitioning any
reason.
Said order dated 28.09.2020 in the case of P. Suresh Kumar
vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition (St.) No. 2306 of 2020 is
stayed by the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order
dated 12.10.2020 in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The
State of Mahashtra in SLP (Crl.) No. 4819 of 2020. Now a detailed
order is passed on 13th Apr. 2021.
Normally Supreme Court never interfere in the interim orders passed by
the High Court, but when there is a patent illegality like Justice Tated’s
judgment then the Suprme Court stays the operation of such illegal orders.
SECOND SIMILAR ILLEGAL ORDER IN ANOTTHER CASE EVEN AFTER STAY
BY THE SUPREME COURT:
Despite Supreme Court staying the unreasoned and illegal order dated
28.09.2020, the Bench of Justice K.K.Tated again on 14.10.2020 in an
another high profile case in the matter of Sagar Suryavanshi Vs. State being
Criminal Writ petition No. 2413 of 2019 passed the similar unreasoned order and
granted similar protection to an accused without there being any urgency.
Justice Tated did not took the note of written objection of the counsel
for Complainant that the said accused Sagar Suryavanshi is absconded and
his prayer to extend the time to surrender is rejected by the Supreme Court.
The more objectionable part in this case is that, the
matter was not placed before the bench of Justice S. S. Shinde and no recusal
order is passed. Surprisingly the
matter was straightaway entertained by the bench of Justice Tated. Which is
against the roster of judicial assignment. Hence the order is also without
jurisdiction and contempt of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the
case of State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1,
where it is ruled that ;
……………..
(2) That the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He alone has the
prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocated cases to the
benches so constituted.
(3) That the puisne Judges can only do that work as is allotted
to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions.
..(6) That the puisne Judges cannot "pack and choose"
any case pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or themselves
for disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief Justice.
(7) That no Judge or Judges can give directions to the Registry
for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the directions
given by the Chief Justice.
We, therefore. hold that all observations, comments,
insinuations, allegations and orders made by the learned Judge in connection
with and relating to the disposed of Writ Petition No. 2949/96 in the impugned
order, are illegal, misconceived and without jurisdiction. The same are quashed
and are hereby directed to be expunged from the record
That, in Superintendent of Central Excise Vs. Somabhai
Ranchhodhbhai Patel (2001) 5 SCC 65, it is ruled that, the level of judicial officer's understanding can have
serious impact on other litigants. "We do not know whether present is an
isolated case of such an understanding. We do not know what has been his past
record. In this view, we direct that a copy of the order shall be sent forthwith to the Registrar General of the High Court
of Gujarat"
Misinterpretation of Supreme Court judgment is contempt.
LAW OF PASSING REASONED ORDER
The Full Bench
observed as under;
“21.4 While considering
the importance of the reasons to be given during the decision-making process,
in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd.
v. Masood Ahmed, (2010) 9 SCC 496, in paragraph 47, this Court has
summarised as under:
“47.
Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a)
In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons,
even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone
prejudicially.
(b)
A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
(c)
Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to
be done as well.
(d)
Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on an ypossible
arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e)
Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by
thedecision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
(f)
Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a
decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial,
quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g)
Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior
courts.
(h)
The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of
law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on
relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making
justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i)
Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different
as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one
common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have
been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants'
faith in the justice delivery system.
(j)
Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
(k)
If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough
about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the
person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l)
Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated
with a valid decision-making process.
(m)
It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint
on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the
judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to
broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100
Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)
(n)
Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine
of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a
component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence.
See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553]
EHRR,
at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ
405
(CA)] , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of
Human Rights which requires,
“adequate
and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital
role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of
law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is
virtually a part of “due process”.”
Therefore, even while
passing such an interim order, in exceptional cases with caution and
circumspection, the High Court has to give brief reasons why it is necessary to
pass such an interim order, more particularly when the High Court is exercising
the extraordinary and inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
EARLIER CRIMINAL OFFENCES AND GROSS VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
THE SENIOR CITIZEN BY JUSTICE K.K.TATED:
Charge# 1: Conviction of poor senior citizen Shri. Sureshchandra
Parekh under criminal contempt without mentitioning specific
charge and passing order against binding precedent of Supreme Court and High
Court:
1.1. That
on 31st January,2019 Justice K.K.Tated and Justice N.J.
Jamadar delivered the judgment in Housing Development
Finance Corporation Ltd Vs. Sureshchandra Parekh 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 138.
1.2. The
said case was conducted against the Rule 6 ( c ) of CHAPTER XXXIV
of Bombay High Court 'RULES TO REGULATE PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT
UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS
ACT, 1971, mandates that the State of Maharashtra should be a
mandatory party .
6 …(c) In every Petition for criminal contempt,
the State of Maharashtra shall be made a Respondent.
1.3. But
in this case State was not made a party respondent and the conduct of case was
left at the hand of a private counsel for petitioner and on this ground alone
the conviction is illegal and it also shows the lack of basic legal knowledge
on the part of Justice Tated. Conducting the trial by giving the complete charge in the hand
of private counsel vitiates the conviction and sentence. [Medichetty
Ramakistiah Vs. The State of A. P AIR 1959 AP 659, Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs State Of Maharashtra,
(2014) 16 (SCC) 623]
1.4. That
as per scheme of Contempt of Courts Act, a private person or the
subordinate court, is only an informant and does not have the status of a
litigant. But This rule was violated and the charge of the case was
left to the hands of private parties. Which is contempt of law laid down by the
Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar
Association (1998) 4 SCC 409.
1.5. That in Kishor M. Gadhave Patil Vs. State
2016 (5) Mh.L.J.75.it is ruled as under;
Contempt generally and
criminal contempt certainly is a matter between the Court and the alleged Contemnor.”
1.6. Full Bench in P. Mohanraj Vs. Shah Brothers Ispat
Pvt. Ltd. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 152, had ruled that the Criminal
Contempt is an offence between court, contemnor and state.
2. Wilful Contempt of Full Bench of the Suprme
Court's judgment in Bal Thackrey's case (2005) 1 SCC 254 by
not framing the specific charge and by taking a view against law laid down by
the full bench of the Supreme Court:
2.1. That during the said proceeding Ld. Amicus Curiae raised the
specific objection that since no charges are framed the proceedings are
vitiated.
The relevant para reads as under;
18. The learned Amicus Curiae
urged that a serious procedural defect occurred in the instant proceedings as
the inquiry has not been conducted in the manner prescribed by Rule 1049 of
the the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994. Rule 1094
reads as under:—
“1049.(a) Any person charged with contempt, may file an Affidavit in
support of his defence on the date fixed for his appearance or on such other
date as may be fixed by the Court in that behalf.
(b) If such person refuses to plead guilt to the charge, his plea shall
be recorded and the Court may, in its discretion, convict him thereon.
(c) If such person refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be
tried or the Court does not convict him on his plea of guilt, it may determine
the matter of the charge either on the Affidavits filed or after taking such
further evidence as it deems fit.”
19. The learned Amicus Curiae laid
emphasis on the provisions of Clause (b) above and urged that the failure to
frame a formal charge and record the plea of respondent No. 1 vitiates the
entire proceeding. Since no formal charge was framed, it cannot be said that
respondent No. 1 was given an effective opportunity of hearing.
2.2. To counter the arguments of the Amicus Curiae the Bench of Justice Tated taken a stand
which is against the binding precedents. It was observed in the said illegal order
as under;
“ Even on a legal premise, the aforesaid Rule does not, in terms, warrant a formal charge to be framed.
Moreover, even under Section 464 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, any error or omission to frame a charge does not
vitiate the trial, if there is no failure of justice.
21 In this context, a useful reference can be made to
a recent Full Bench judgment of this Court of this Court in case of Bombay
High Court on its own Motion Vs. Ketan Tirodkar wherein, the nature of
contempt proceedings and the procedure therefor were explained in the following
words :-
"6 Pertinently these very materials were referred
to in a notice to show cause addressed to the respondent which has been duly
served. Upon its receipt, there is absolutely no iota of doubt that the
respondent is aware of what he has to meet. In fact, he has not questioned the
procedure adopted, particularly insofar as issuance and service of a show
cause notice. He was aware of the charge that he has to meet and, therefore, he
purports to deal with it by filing affidavits-in- reply.
7. …The power of this Court to punish for
contempt is not restricted or trammeled by ordinary legislations. This Court
derives the same from Article 215 of the
Constitution of India. The inherent power thus derived is elastic, unfettered
and not subjected to any limit. In Pritam Pal and later cases, it has
been adequately and amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
so long as the gist of the specific allegations is made clear or otherwise the
contemnor is aware of the specific allegations, it is not always necessary to
formulate the charge in a a specific allegation. The procedure under the Rules,
therefore, does not offend the principles of natural justice. The Judge has to
remain in full control of the hearing of the case and he must be able to take
steps to restore order as early and quickly as possible. The degree of
precision with which the charge may be stated depends upon the circumstances of
each case. The time factor is crucial. Dragging of contempt proceedings means a
lengthy interruption to the proceedings which, at times, paralyzes the Court
and indirectly impedes the speed and efficiency with which justice is
administered. So long as the contemnor's interests are adequately safeguarded
by giving him an opportunity of being heard in his defence, then, the procedure
followed cannot be faulted. This is the summary of the salutary principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and at the same time, it has cautioned that
the power should be used sparingly. We have, but gone by this prescription
alone." 22 The full Bench of this Court has observed in clear and explicit
terms that so long as the gist of the specific allegations is made clear or
otherwise the contemnor is aware of the specific allegations, it is not always
necessary to formulate the charge. The degree of precision with which the
charge may be stated, varies according to the circumstances of the case and so
long as the contemnor's interests are adequately safeguarded by giving him an
effective opportunity of hearing, the procedure followed cannot be faulted at.
23 In the backdrop all the facts, elaborately narrated
above, it becomes abundantly clear that respondent No.1 was provided an effective
opportunity of hearing in all its facets, namely, adequate opportunity to
put-forth his defence, representation by a competent advocate and even
financial assistance to meet the travelling expenses. Thus, we are not
persuaded to accede to the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae that
the proceedings are vitiated on account of breach of procedure prescribed in
Rule 1049 of Rules 1994 24 ..”
2.3. The above observations are in direct contempt of the binding
precedent of Full Bench in Bal Thackrey’s case where judgement in Pritam
Pal’s case is specifically overruled. But Justice Tated and Justice N.
J.Jamadar ignored the full Bench judgment and relied on overruled judgment in Pritam Pal's case. It is a gross
contempt and also an offence under sec 220,211 of IPC.
Recently Full bench in Full
bench in P. Mohanraj (supra) had ruled that the proceedings under contempt must be concluded giving strict
adherence to the statutory rules framed for the purpose including framing of
charge.
Failure
to follow rules vitiates the conviction and procedure. In the case of R.S.
Sujhata (2011) 5 SCC 689, had ruled that, any deviation from rules framed by the Court in contempt is fatal to the case and vitiates the Contempt Proceedings
2.4. That, the view taken by
Justice Tated is against the binding precedent in Ebrahim Mammojec Parekh Vs. Emperor ILR 4
Rang 257 (AIR 1926 Rangoon 188), which is upheld by the Full Bench of the
Supreme Court, it is ruled as under;
“Contempt – Framing of charge is mandatory – Even if it is a gross
contempt and the person admitted it then
also the person cannot be punished without framing specific charge against him
and giving opportunity to answering the said charge – The provisions of
Criminal Procedure Code stating about no-necessity in summary proceedings to
frame charges is not applicable to the Contempt Proceedings – In Contempt
proceedings framing of charge is must – Sentence in Contempt set aside.
2.6. The above law is made mandatory
to all Courts in India in the case of Sukhdev Singh Sodhi 1954 SCR
454 where it is ruled as under;
“21. ………………….All that is necessary is
that the procedure is fair and that the contemnor is made aware of the charge
against him and given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. This
rule was laid down by the Privy Council in In re Pollard (LR 2
PC 106 at 120) and was followed in India and in Burma in In
re Vallabhdas (ILR 27 Bom 394 at 399)and Ebrahim Mamoojee
Parekh v. King Emperor (ILR (4) Rang 257 at 259-261)
In our view that is still the law.”
2.8. That, in R.S.
Sherawat Vs. Rajeev Malhotra (2018) 10 SCC 574, it is ruled that, the proceedings are vitiated for not
framing of charge. It is ruled as under;
‘‘23. As a matter of
fact, the appellant ought to succeed on the singular ground that the High Court unjustly proceeded against him without framing formal charges or
furnishing such charges to him ’’
3. That
the necessity for framing charge under sec 15(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act
is explained in J.R. Parashar (2001) 6 SCC 735 where it is ruled that the
Supreme Court has to conduct contempt proceeding as per section 15[3] of the
contempt of Courts Act,1971 which mandates for distinct and specific charge. It
is further ruled that, the Court cannot punish the contemnor for the charge
which was not served in the notice. For any new charge fresh notice is required
to be issued.It is ruled as
under;
‘‘22. The actual proceedings for contempt are quasi- criminal and summary in
nature. Two consequences follow from this. First, the acts for which
proceedings are intended to be launched must be intimated to the person against
whom action is proposed to be taken with sufficient particularity so that the
persons charged with having committed the offence can effectively
defend themselves. It is for this
reason Section 15 requires
that every motion or reference made under this section must specify the
contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be
guilty. The second consequence which follows from the quasi-criminal nature of the proceeding is that if
there is reasonable doubt on the existence of a state of facts that doubt must
be resolved in favour of the person or persons proceeded against. In
addition this Court has framed Rules under, inter-alia, Section 23 of
the Act providing in detail for the procedure to be followed by the Court and its Registry on the one hand
and the complainant/respondent on the other.”
4. The law laid down in J.R.
Parashar’s case is further upheld by Full Bench in Bal
Thackrey’s case (2005) 1 SCC 254.
5. In The Editor for Blitz Publications
Vs. The State 1979 ILR Bombay 25 (D.B.) it is ruled as under;
‘‘A] Contempt of Court
Act, 1971 – Section 15(3) – In all proceedings including Suo-Moto proceedings
the notice given must indicate the specific contempt which the person charged
is alleged to be guilty of. The notice ought to have indicated in clear terms
in what way the Editor had committed contempt as defined in the Act. Notice
defective.
The article ‘No Money Then No Justice?’ does not prejudice
or interfere with the due course of Justice. The article is an article pleading
for the course of justice. Notice
discharged.
6. That, there are many
such illegal orders passed by Justice Tated and already application for
sanction to prosecute him is filed before the President of India and the
Complainant is soon going to file the complinat for prosecution of Justice
Tated and others under sec. 218,219,220,211, 192,193,466,167,471,474,120(B) and
34 of IPC
Copy of the judgment by the Supreme court : Click here to Download Now
Comments
Post a Comment