VILAS V. SANGHAI Vs. SUMERMAL MISHRIMAL BAFNA & ANR.
LAWS(SC)-2016-9-51
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 30,2016

Vilas V. Sanghai Appellant
VERSUS
Sumermal Mishrimal Bafna And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ANIL R.DAVE,J. - (1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22nd December, 1997 delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.22 of 1994, Criminal Appeal No.181 of 1998 has been filed by Vilas V. Sanghai against the order of punishment imposed upon him under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Criminal Appeal No.210 of 1998 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra for setting aside the said judgment.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under : - As two appeals have been filed against the same judgment, for narration of the facts, we have referred to the facts from Criminal Appeal No.181 of 1998, which has been filed by Vilas V. Sanghai, a Police Inspector, who was entrusted with investigation of a case filed against Respondent No.1, Sumermal Mishrimal Bafna, a Trustee of Bafna Charitable Trust. Respondent no.1, who is aged about 64 years and is having some heart ailment, claims to be a man with good reputation. A private complaint was filed against Respondent No.1 by Shri Umesh Karia to the effect that Respondent No.1 had committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 420 read with Sections 120 -B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation in relation to the said complaint had been entrusted to the Appellant, who was attached to the Crime Branch at the relevant time.
(3.) Respondent No.1 had an apprehension that he might be arrested in the course of investigation and therefore, he had filed an application for anticipatory bail. During the pendency of the said anticipatory bail application, the Appellant used to remain present to brief the learned Public Prosecutor, who was opposing the said application. No interim order was passed in the said application when the application was being heard but in the presence of the Appellant and in pursuance of the instructions given by the Appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor had made a statement that during the pendency of the said application, Respondent No.1 would not be arrested, provided Respondent No.1 would cooperate with the Police in the investigation.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.