advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, December 22, 2016

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 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.

                                                                  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.



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.
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 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.

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

“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.

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 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
      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:

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.
The hospital has not formally discharged respondent No.1 if he is  otherwise
fit and does not require any further hospitalization.
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 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 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.

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  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
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 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:

  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 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.

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

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.”


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 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
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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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. Paterson[1]  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 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.  A[2]  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 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
another[3].  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 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 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
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.

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.










29.   Ordered accordingly.


…………………CJI.
(T.S. Thakur)



…………………….J.
(R. Banumathi)



…………………….J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi,
December 15, 2016
-----------------------
[1]     (1895-99) All ER 1127
[2]    (1982) 1 All ER 556
[3]    (1991) 2 All ER 398

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.