Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Page - 45: the order dated 16.9.2006 passed by the respondent No. 1 is contrary to the materials on judicial records of this case and it can be safely said that order dated 16.9.2006 on this issue is deliberate, violation of law, illegal, mala fide, contrary to law and to show judicial favour to the Decree Holders/respondents at the cost of principle of impartiality maintained by the respondent No. 1 and hence this part of the order dated 16.9.2006 attracts Section 219 of the I.P.C. and the respondent No. 1 deserves criminal prosecution for violation of Section 219 of I.P.C.
Page 2558 Page 48 & 49 - Despite these evidence on judicial record prior to 4.7.2005 and 7.1.2006 as well as 21.1.2006 (Because the aforesaid deposition of Md. Shakil Ahmad took place on 18.3.2094/5.4.2004) the respondent No. 1 deliberately refused to take into consideration. Because, had it been considered by him, he could not have shown judicial favour to the Decree Holders/respondents at the cost of impartiality which he was supposed to maintain and the claim of Power of Attorney holder Md. Ayub Quash, the respondent No. 3 would have been falsified, because he is not one of the Decree Holders and thus the respondent No. 1 passed illegal, malafide, partial judicial order contrary to law and hence the judicial order/action of the respondent No. 1 falls in the net Section 219 of I.P.C.
Page 100: That, now, it is relevant to comment upon the attempt of the petitioner to get the respondent No. 1 criminally prosecuted by the direction of this Hon'ble Court for the purpose of granting sanction Under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. In this context Section 219 of I.P.C. has already been quoted hereinbefore and hence it need not be repeated by the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of this case the learned respondent No. 1 deserves to be criminally prosecuted in terms of prayer made by the petitioner.
Page 4 & 5 Para 3. That, at the outset, it is made clear that the alleged contemner lawyer had owned the responsibility of drafting the writ petition but had not admitted in any view of the matter that the said writ application was contemptuous and contained unsavoury allegations against the learned Additional District Judge, Giridih, namely Shri Pankaj Kumar, who will be here-in-after to be referred in short as "Shri Pankaj Kumar".
Page 5 & 6 Para 4 That in the said writ application the alleged contemner lawyer has simply made allegations of passing deliberate, illegal Judicial Orders in face of materials on judicial records concerned and had prayed before this Hon'ble Court that his Judicial Orders dated 21.12.2005 & 16.9.2006, passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 23/2003, be set aside, if it is found that it is illegal order as well as had also prayed that whether that Judicial Order was passed deliberately, or not, should be examined by this Hon'ble Court and if it is found that the aforesaid orders were passed deliberately and knowingly, to be illegal orders passed by learned Sri Pankaj Kumar, then it should also be examined as to whether this type of Judicial Orders is attracting the ingredients of Section 219 of the Indian Penal Code and if it is found that it attracts, in that event a prayer was made in judicial side of this Hon'ble Court to direct the Governor of State of Jharkhand to accord sanction for his criminal prosecution, Under Section 219 of the Indian Penal Code, in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by his client Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta and in the Legal Opinion of the alleged contemner lawyer, there is nothing illegality involved in the demand and no unsavoury remark has been made against the learned Shri Pankaj Kumar but only facts on judicial record in a very polite and submissive but assertive language has been mentioned.