{"id":5611,"date":"2012-09-11T05:28:21","date_gmt":"2012-09-11T05:28:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=5611"},"modified":"2012-09-11T05:28:55","modified_gmt":"2012-09-11T05:28:55","slug":"birendra-kumar-singh-vs-uoi-patna-high-court-high-court-fumes-sends-depts-top-brass-to-jail-for-gross-contempt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/birendra-kumar-singh-vs-uoi-patna-high-court-high-court-fumes-sends-depts-top-brass-to-jail-for-gross-contempt\/","title":{"rendered":"Birendra Kumar Singh vs. UOI (Patna High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
Click here to download the judgement (birendra_singh_jhantu_das_contempt_court.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n


\nHigh Court Fumes & Sends Dept\u2019s Top Brass To Jail For \u201cGross Contempt\u201d
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The assessee\u2019s truck loaded with betel nuts was seized by the customs authorities on the suspicion that the assessee was indulging in smuggling. The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the seizure which was allowed by the High Court and the customs authorities were directed to unconditionally release the truck immediately. Despite the High Court\u2019s verdict, the customs authorities issued a show-cause notice threatening confiscation. The assessee filed a contempt petition against the department. The department defended its stand and at the same time tendered an unconditional apology. HELD by the High Court:<\/p>\n

Though the High Court\u2019s order was communicated to the department directing a release of the truck without any conditions, the department wrongly demanded 100% cash security and 100% Bond for the said release. The act of issuing show cause notice to avoid giving release is in direct confrontation with the judicial order of the Court. The plea raised with respect to investigation and confiscation is \u201cabsolutely frivolous and ridiculous<\/strong>\u201d and has been raised to save from punishment of contempt. Also, the act of justifying the action and simultaneously tendering unqualified apology is a \u201cdouble faced stance<\/strong>\u201d which is against the settled principle of law. The Asst\/Dy Commissioner, Customs, being a senior officer<\/strong>, should have known his limits and by crossing those limits<\/strong>, he has committed gross contempt<\/strong>. He is accordingly punished with simple imprisonment<\/strong> of three months & fine<\/strong> of Rs. 2,000. Also, as the act may constitute \u201ccorrupt practice<\/strong>\u201d, the CBEC may consider prosecuting him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Though the High Court\u2019s order was communicated to the department directing a release of the truck without any conditions, the department wrongly demanded 100% cash security and 100% Bond for the said release. The act of issuing show cause notice to avoid giving release is in direct confrontation with the judicial order of the Court. The plea raised with respect to investigation and confiscation is \u201cabsolutely frivolous and ridiculous<\/strong>\u201d and has been raised to save from punishment of contempt. Also, the act of justifying the action and simultaneously tendering unqualified apology is a \u201cdouble faced stance<\/strong>\u201d which is against the settled principle of law. The Asst\/Dy Commissioner, Customs, being a senior officer<\/strong>, should have known his limits and by crossing those limits<\/strong>, he has committed gross contempt<\/strong>. He is accordingly punished with simple imprisonment<\/strong> of three months & fine<\/strong> of Rs. 2,000. Also, as the act may constitute \u201ccorrupt practice<\/strong>\u201d, the CBEC may consider prosecuting him<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5611","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5611"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5611\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}