M/S Apical Exim Private Limited vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 8 November, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

M/S Apical Exim Private Limited vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 8 November, 2012

Bench: D. N. Patel

IN   THE   HIGH   COURT   OF   JHARKHAND   AT   RANCHI
              Contempt Case (Cri) No. 01 of 2012
M/s. Apical Exim Private Limited              ...        ...       ...        Petitioner
                             Versus
State of Jharkhand and others  ...              ...      ...     ...      Opp. Parties
                       
CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
                       
For the Petitioner:    Mr. Rajesh Kumar
For the Opp. Parties:  J.C. to A.S.G.I.
                       
09/Dated:  November, 08, 2012
Per D.N. Patel, J

1) Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out the fact whether in compliance of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, consent of the Advocate General has been taken or not. In absence of this consent, the application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not tenable at law, as submitted by the counsel for the State.

2) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the provision of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under: "15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases. (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by

(a) the AdvocateGeneral, or

(b) any other person, with the consent in writing to the AdvocateGeneral [or]

(c) in relation to the High Court for the Union territory in Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer.]

2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may take action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the AdvocateGeneral or, in relation to a Union territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

(3) Every motion or reference made under section shall specify the contempt of which the charged is alleged to be guilty. Explanation. In this section, the expression "AdvocateGeneral"

means

(a) in relation to the Supreme Court, the AttorneyGeneral or the SolicitorGeneral;

(b) in relation to the High Court, the AdvocateGeneral of the State or any of the States for which the High Court has been established;

(c) in relation to the Court of a Judicial Commissioner, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf."

3) In view of the aforesaid provision, the consent of the Advocate General is required, because this application has been filed by a private person, namely M/s Apical Exim Private Limited. In view of such lack of consent, this application is not tenable at law. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.




                                                               (D. N. Patel, J)


Manoj/cp.2                                                  (Prashant Kumar, J)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court