9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant for deciding this petition are that learned ACMM vide order dated 27th April, 2009, on an application made by petitioner No. 1 Syed Nusrat Ali passed an order directing ACP Mr. Amit Roy and the Investigating Officer to appear in person and to show cause as to why proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act and for other offences be not initiated against both of them. Against this order of learned ACMM, the State filed a revision and the learned Special Judge NDPS Act vide order dated 20th July, 2009 set aside the order dated 27th April, 2009 passed by learned ACMM qua ACP Mr. Amit Roy but held the order qua Investigating Officer Ram Kumar Chaudhary. 3. By present petition applicant/petitioner No. 1 Syed Nusrat Ali assailed the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the powers were being exercised. If there was no provision under Cr.P.C of issuing a show cause notice to an investigating officer or to his superior officer for contempt of court, such powers cannot be exercised by the subordinate courts. 5. A perusal of order of learned ACMM would show that he considered that the conduct of two police officials had the effect of lowering the reputation of the Court of learned ACMM in the eyes of the applicant or other persons associated with him. He, therefore, issued a show cause notice to both of them. A perusal of provisions of Contempt of Courts Act would show that a Court subordinate to High Court has no powers to initiate proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act. Under Section 10 of Contempt of Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the order of learned ACMM issuing show cause notice to the Investigating Officer/ACP. However, Court of learned ACMM will have liberty to refer issue of contempt to High Court. The present revision petition was filed by the applicant Syed Nusrat Ali who wanted proceedings against ACP and Investigating Officer to be initiated. The applicant (petitioner No. 1) would be at liberty to take resort to appropriate law to initiate action, if so advised, and if there was a cause for the same. The action, as initiated by learned ACMM, was illegal and contrary to law.
7. The present petition stands disposed of with above observations. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
