Smita Ambalal
Patel Vs. ILA Vipin Pandya [2008] Insc 268 (22 February 2008)
K.G.
Balakrishnan, C.K. Thakker & R.V. Raveendran
O R D
E R CRIMINAL M.P. NO 794 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL M.P. NO. 5085 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2001 K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI (1)
The
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court found the petitioner guilty of contempt
of court and sentenced her to imprisonment for a period of three weeks.
Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court. On
March 26, 2001, this Court passed an order and held that the imprisonment
ordered by the High Court would remain suspended for a period of five years and
the petitioner herein was directed to give an undertaking before the learned
Single Judge (before whom the contempt was committed by her) in the form of an
affidavit that she will not commit any act of contempt of any court hereafter
and that if the said undertaking is violated the sentence of imprisonment
imposed on her will automatically revive and the appellant will be liable to be
put in prison for undergoing that part of the sentence. It was also indicated
in that order that as to what would be the situation after the period of five
years will be decided by the High Court on a motion made by the
appellant-contemnor.
(2)
The petitioner sought modification of the order dated March 26, 2001 by filing review petition. The same
was filed in 2006, long after the order passed in appeal filed by the
petitioner.
The
said petition for modification of this Court's order dated March 26, 2001 was dismissed on July 17, 2006. Now, the petitioner seeks
clarification or modification of order passed by this Court on July 17, 2006 and also to set aside the
show-cause Notice for Contempt issued by the learned Single Judge on August 25, 2000.
(3)
The petitioner herself argued the matter. We find no reason to grant the
prayers sought for by the petitioner. However, we make it clear that the
undertaking given by her before the learned Single Judge as directed by this
Court for suspending the custodial sentence has now exhausted itself as five
years have elapsed and no further direction is required in this matter.
(4)
The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Back
Pages: 1 2
