IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

 
   

CONTEMPT OF COURT [Criminal]  Case No 22 of 2000.

Between:

  Mr. Digvijay Mote,

  S/o Ramachandra Mote

  Aged about 45 years

  No. 6, 5th Cross, Rose Garden,

  Neelasandra , Bangalore. 56 0047………….. Complainant. [ In-Person ]                           

  A N D

1.      Mr. M. B. Prakash . I.A.S

 Secretary to Govt. of Karnataka ,

 Department of  Home & Transport , Vidhana Soudha

 Bangalore. 56 00 01.

2.      Mr. C. Dinakar.  I.P.S

 Director General & Inspector General of Police in Karnataka.

 Nrupatunga Road,

 Bangalore. 56 00 01.

3.      Mr. Joy De D'souza .

 Circle Inspector [ Traffic ]

 Ashok Nagar Circle,

  Bangalore. 56 00 47.

4.     Mr. M.H Annayyanavar , Magistrate ,

  Metropolitan Magistrate of Traffic Court-I ,

  Mayo Hall , M.G.Road ,

  Bangalore. 56 00 01…………………………………………..Contemners .

CONTEMPT  PETITION  UNDER Article 141 of Constitution of India  Read with Supreme Court Judgement  JT 1997 (1) S.C.1 = AIR.1997SC.610=1997 Crl LJ . 743 r/w Contempt of Courts Act , 1971.

The Complainants above named respectfully submits as follows :--

1.0]                                  F A C T S  OF  THE  CASE

 The Contemners 1 , 2 , 3 & 4   are the successors to their respective  predecessors  who were Party Respondents represented by the Advocate General in the matter of hearing of W .P. ( CRL.)No.539 of 1986 filed under Article 32 of     Constitution of  India which case was clubbed with W.P(CRL) No. 592 0f 1987     which came to be to be disposed of on 18-12-1996 by Supreme Court   Reported as  Shri D.K.Basu Vs State of West Bengal  JT 1997 ( 1) S.C.1 = AIR.1997 SC.610=1997 Crl LJ . 743

1.1  ]       In the said case all the State Governments & Union Territories apart from State of   Karnataka had filed their Affidavits etc.  It is respectfully submitted that the Judgement is not over-ruled  and hence as per Article 141 is a Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts .The said Judgement is a fallout of marathon Ten years long deliberations  of which salient features , amongst others, are enumerated in successive sub- paras. Violation of the various REQUIREMENTS issued in the kind of Directions  & punishments therefor including Contempt is self-contained therein of which certain relevant excerpts of the Judgement are recited below: -

a ] At  Para 30 " How do we check the abuse of Police power ?Transparency of action and accountability perhaps are two possible safe guards which this court must insist upon . Attention is also required to be paid to properly develop work culture , training and orientation consistent with basic human values.  …….… Efforts must be made to change the attitude and approach of the police personnel handling investigations so that they do not sacrifice basic human values during interrogation and do not resort to questionable forms of interrogation . With a view to bring in transparency , the presence of the counsel of the arrested at some point of  time during the interrogation may deter ……  .

b ] At Para 18  " …………Experience shows that worst violations of human rights take place during the course of investigation .

c ]   At Para   26  " The trial court and the High Court , if we may say so with respect , exhibited a total lack of sensitivity and a : could not careless : attitude……  . This Court then suggested: The courts are also required to have a change in their outlook and attitude, …………………,………, the guilty should not escape so they the victim of the crime has the satisfaction that ultimately the Majesty of Law has prevailed ."

d ]    At Para 34  [in fifth sentence] " The action of the State , however , must be  ; right  just & fair ;. Further the 8th sentence " His Constitutional right can not be abridged except in the manner permitted by law, though in very nature of things there would be qualitative difference in the method of interrogation of such a person as compared to an ordinary criminal.

e]     At para 35;  It is desirable that the officer arresting a person should prepare a memo of his arrest at the time of arrest in the presence of at least one witness who may be a member of the family of the arrestee, which is Direction no.2  .

f ]   At Para 36 . We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures: The Xerox copy of the Eleven Requirements to be followed is produced at page………  hereto this petition .

g ]   At Para   37 .   Failure to comply with the requirements herein above mentioned shall apart from rendering the concerned official liable for departmental action, also render him liable to be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in any High Court ….., having territorial jurisdiction over the matter .

h ]  At Para 40 . The requirements mentioned above shall be forwarded to Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of every State / Union Territory and it shall be their obligation to circulate the same to every police station under their charge and get the same notified at every police station at a conspicuous place . The Xerox of paras 32 to 41 of the Judgement  could be found at page ……which forms part of Annexure no. 2 .

1.2 ]     In the case of this Complainant the  Contemners have jointly or severally have acted Conemptuously  in violation of Directions morefully of Direction nos.; 1 , 2 ,3 , 4 , 5, 6,7,8  &  10 + Para 40  and hence this Contempt Petition in accordance with Para 37 of the referred Judgement .

   

2.] Facts of the case in context & its backdrops of C.C.no. 21762 of 2000 on the File of Cotemner no. 4

 2.0 ]    It is the considered opinion of this Complainant that should the Contemners  were to follow & implement the aforesaid Directions ; the Complainant would not have approached this Court with this Contempt Petition nor there would have been a case . It emphatically clear that if I violate law I am more than any one will honourably would like bear the Fines / punishment if Court of Law finds me guilty . Also on the contrary let not the Law Enforcing Agencies in the name of their Duties , let them not violate Law .   Contemners & their predecessors have in utter contempt of said Judgement have continued unabatedly fostering cases against innocent Public; as the Public is just scared to fight-out against the well-knit & organized Police against the atrocities committed being perpetrated on them .

2 . 1]      The aforesaid judgement is in tune with the observations made by Supreme Court of United States in Stein Vs New York [ 346 US 156 , 73 S Ct 1077 ( 1953 ) ] :-

The adminstration of Justice requires absolute Equality , " Not out of tenderness for the accused but because….Civilization ...by respecting the dignity even of the least worthy citizen , raises the Stature of all of us and builds an atmosphere of trust& confidence in Government ".

2.2 ]      But generally in most of cases in  Karnataka  Law Enforcing Agencies  are acting in accordance  with the observations of Justice Brandies of US Supreme Court in year 1928 in Omstead Vs US :-

" The Government which is Omnipresent & Omnipotent powered with full of Laws ;

as a Teacher which teaches its Subjects by its Examples ; If it violates Law it calls for Contempt of Law ;Thereby allows People to take Law unto themselves ; thereby it invites Anarchy "

2.3 ]     Accordingly  aggrieved of excesses , illegal arrest , torturous investigations   by Law Enforcing Officials or excesses committed by them to please their Political Bosses ;  People in General are opting for following methods :

            [ a] Take law unto oneself ; fight against Government for example Veerappan , JKLF inKashmir ,ULFA in Assam , TNLA / LTTE in Tamil Nadu , Chota Rajan , Dawwod Ibrahim etc…. .

            [ b ] Use the one's clout in the Govt. & get away with crime ; as the officials for their future   good  , like to be in good books of such influential men  .

             [ c ] Others who are rich / Status Concerned  / Aliens to Karnataka  from other States , Foreign  Countries  /  Information Technology high flying Executives  who mean Time is Money etc get away by Greasing the palms ; whether violated Law or not .

              [ d ] Less privileged  attend the Court next day , though not violated any law , Plead Guilty   and walk away heads-down , by  paying the penalties .

              [ e ] Still lesser privileged Plead Guilty or not languish in Jails ; for no crime of them  & if at all   petty case as  for not having money or Bail / surety .

 Realising the weaknesses of people in aforesaid  people in  [c], [d] & [e] groups these Law Enforcing     Officials   take such people for ride ; consider for personal benefit , Ego of Police Power , for Statistics & such other  ulterior motives : violating all norms of Humanity , Fundamental Rights , Human Rights , Supreme Court Directions & Laws .These people are left only two options  either  continue the wrath / agony or promote themselves to group [ a ] ,  it is contended ,  in accordance with ; Shakespeare's dialogue in Hamlet's Soliloquy , Act III. Scene 1 i.e.,

" To be , or not to be : that is the question ,    Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer   The slings and arrows of outrageous Torture ,  Or  to take Arms against a sea of troubles ,     And by Opposing End them " .

2. 4 ]   (a)   It is with   this  Philosophy  that , it is felt , Patriots should not become Enemies-Within   India ; the Supreme Court issued Directins as a Stop-gap arrengement until the Governments enacts Law; but it is pathetic that  it never saw the Light in Police Stations ; except to remain in book.

 ( b )  However this Complainant has high hope that his efforts to make the referred Judgement see the Light will not go waste: has approached this Hon'ble Court in the like manner as Mr. Ashok Kumar Kathotia who was kept under illegal custody / extorted one Lakh Rupees etc reported in Asian Age News Paper date-lined 21st September 2000, of which  transcribed copy is enclosed as Annexure no. 4; wherein conceding to his no-faith in Bangalore City Police, Hon'ble Justice Mr. Mohan Kumar  referred the matter to Central Bureau of Investigation .

( c )    It is said in India 25,000 Acts followed by Lakhs of Sections, followed by crores of bye-laws, Orders not to mention of conflicting Judgements of various Courts etc

It is said that Court considers " Ignorance of Law , is not an Excuse for Law violated " : Question is that whether converse of this proposition is applicable to Law Enforcing Officials or not  ? 

2. 5 ]    The Coplainant's antecedents are detailed in at page…. Apart from that due to the Private Investigations carried on by this Complainant & at his cost spread over 3 years, Bangalore Development Authority is getting recovered 50 Crores worth its Property which was hitherto was illegally usurped byLand-sharks in collusion with Sub-Registrars & BDA officials etc conspired to rob a Sheet-of-Document detailing Five Lakh Sft of Civic Amenity sites from Relinquishment Deed ; property being situated off Airport Road & on Ring Road : of which Investigation is handed over to C.O.D by Revenue Department . This Complainant did not heeded to accept Lakhs of Rupees & sites Offered by conspirators to not-to expose the matter; as such collusion is anathema for him.

2.6 ]     The whole matter referred to above  was known to Contemner No. 3.He  also knew  that Complainat  lives with his family within the jurisdiction of Contemner No.3. On 15th August 2000 while the Complainant was driving on his Hero Honda KA-02-E-3987 Contemner No.3  for reasons well known to the said Contemner accosted him & requested to come to his Police Station . At the station when I realized that Inspector is up-to some tricks I requested him to allow me to inform my family of the facts on phone , I was denied . Similar request to call my Advocate also denied. This despite informing him that such denials are contrary to Supreme Court directions, Fundamental Rights & Human Rights. After verifying vehicle documents  & some irrelated questions by him & his sub-ordinates I was forced to sign / thumb impression on some Blank papers Including some notice like Book against my will & later took me to various places for medical test; where-in also I was forced to put my signature & thumb impression on blank forms & Register: which ordeal started   from around 1900Hrs  & to end  around 2300 Hrs at which time I was let off  but keeping my vehicle in his custody and did not give me any copies of  the papers & Documents I was made to sign on.

2.7 ]  The copy of letter dated 16 / 8 / 2000 served on Conemner no. 3  by this complainant   is enclosed   at page…… of this petition forming as part of Ann.no. 1  copy of which was served upon Commissioner of Police on 17 / 8 / 2000 is enclosed . The letter in brief details what transpired on 15th, 16th & 17th August.

2 . 8 ]     When my wife & my neighbors  on 18/8/2000 started informing one-after-one that one Police from Contemner No. 3's  office had come to arrest me ; without leaving behind his details or FIR or Charge Sheet  ; I as a law abiding citizen ventured myself  voluntarily to the   court of Contemner No.4  on 19/8/2000  with my letter to his office , with due acknowledgement of his office which is enclosed as Annexure no. 1  and what transpired in court on that day is  evidentially explained in Annexure no. 2 , which was filed in the office of Contemner No. 4 on 24/8/2000.

2.9 ]        On 19 / 8 / 2000 this complainant  by a letter dated 18/8/2000  with due acknowledgement of office of Cotemner No.4 informing of frauds being perpetrated by Conemner No.3 upon this Complainant  and alerted the Contemner No.4 stating that he may play fraud upon the Court of Contemner No. 4 . Later when I approached Contemner No. 4, his court said that on 16 / 8 / 2000 a NBW is issued & case is registered as C.C.No. 21762 / 2000 etc. & that case is adjourned to 28/8/2000. The copies of 18th letter, which is enclosed here-with as Annexture- 1, were with due acknowledgement of offices were presented to the offices of    [a] Hon'ble Justice Mr.  Ashok BHAN   Acting Chief Justice  & Hon'ble Justice Mr. M.F. Saldhana ; requesting the Hon,ble High Court to treat the same as Letter Petition , [ b ]  MMTC-1, Government Pleader & [c] Deputy Commissioner of Traffic , Bangalore  .

2. 10  ]      Annexture-  2  here-to is the copy of letter of this complainant presented to Contemner no. 4 in his court on 24/8/2000 , copy of which was served upon Govt. Pleader . On that day the Pleader for reasons known to him -self, said " Let the Contemner No. 3 the Inspector him-self   defend his role ; later Conemner no.4 adjourned the case to 26th August 2000 after directing the Contemner No. 3 to be present on next date of hearing . Promptly this Complainant presented the copies of this letter also to High Court office of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan  , Acting Chief Justice  & Hon'ble Justice Mr. M.F. Saldhana ; requesting the Hon'ble High Court to treat the same as Letter Petition  on 24/8/2000.

2. 11]  Annexture- 3   here-to, is  dated 28th August , which when I went to serve on the Contemner No. 4 through his office on 29th  I was alerted that , the next date of case is 26th September 2000 but not 26th August. However this Complainant served the copies of same as Notices upon [a] Contemner No.1 Mr. M.B.Prakash , Home Secretary & [b] Contemner No. 2 Mr. C. Dinakar , DG & IG of Police in Karnataka . Promptly this Complainant presented the copies of this letter also to High Court office of Hon'ble Justice Mr.  Ashok Bhan, Acting Chief Justice  & Hon'ble Justice Mr. M.F. Saldhana ; requesting the Hon,ble High Court to treat the same as Letter Petition  on 29/8/2000. For kind information & needful action / intervention copies of same were served upon offices of Law Secretary to Govt. of Karnataka , DIG &commissioner for Traffic , DCP (Traffic), Bangalore .

2. 12  ]         Till date as all the Contemners have failed in their duty to provide me with copies of any of the  alleged case, Complainant is unable to produce the same to this Court .The proof to that effect is reflected in the Annextures 1 , 2 & 3 . Neither the reasons of keeping the vehicle in illegal custody by Contemner No.3 are show-caused to me till-date. Also as this Complainant has challenged the very investigation, FIR, Complaint filed by Contemner No.3 which are by themselves being the base for this Contempt Partition, the Complainant is not required to apply for copies of the same and so also as it was the duty as per Law Contemner no. 4 to furnish the same; it  is considered lawful opinion that this Complainant need not apply for the same as it is his Lawful Right   to get the same free of cost .

3.     CONTEMPTS

3 . 0 ] Contemners have acted Willfully , Conemptuously  in violation of Directions morefully of Direction nos.; 1 , 2 ,3 , 4 , 5, 6,7,8  &  10 + Para 40 in the case of this Complainant , amongst others , and hence this Contempt Petition in accordance with Para 37 of the referred Judgement  & conspired to disrespect the Majesty of Supreme Court & continued to defeat its Directions ; have coerced the Judicial Proceedings ; by their willful Misdeameanous actions amongst others have attempted to create a sense of Distrust in Rule of Law , Majesty of Supreme Court  & High Court in the mind of not only this Complainant but also Public in General   ; which are listed below : for which harshest of harsh Punishment needs to be given to Contemners to  uphold & maintain  the Majesty of Courts & their Orders.  Contemners 1 , 2 & 3 have also brought disrepute & disrespect to the Police Department & its Law abiding Humanly Police personnel  . 

3.1]     Contmner Nos. 1, 2  & 3  have jointly & severally have failed to Notify in accordance with Para 40 of the Judgement of Supreme Court  JT 1997 (1) S.C. 1 of the of the Directions in kind of Eleven Requirements to be notified in all Police Stations of State of Karnataka and more so in Ashok Nagar [ Traffic ] Police Station as on 15th August 2000 on the day of alleged incident.  Despite bringing to their Notice of the Supreme Court Directions they willfully continued the Contempt .

3 .2 ]   Conemner No.3 failed to respect the said Judgement despite the Complainant off-hand   informing  him of his rights nor allowed to Phone his family nor allowed to avail service of Advocate & carried on investigations & interrogations  ; prepared & filed FIR , Complaint etc in Contempt of Supreme Court Judgement .

3.3 ]  Contemner No.3 forced the Complainat to sign  on Blank  Notice/ summons  & failed to issue copy of any of such signed Documents  including FIR , charge Sheet etc .

3 . 4 ]    Contemner No.3 continued willfully  the Contempt of Court  by  getting an Non-Bailable-Warrant of Arrest of Complainant  from Contemner No.4 on 16th August 2000 ,by fraud .

3 . 5]    Contemner No.3 despite notifying him & his office by the Complainant on 16th by letter , which is enclosed herewith as Ann.1 , failed to provide with Copies of all requisite documents, till date ,mentioned therein including me alarming him not to coerce court proceedings  & also bringing to his notice that such acts of him amounts to Contempt of court etc.  Nor even after having Honda, till date. Nor has he informed under which of the provisions of law vehicle is seized.

3 . 6 ] Despite Complainant having  produced all Original Vehicle Documents on 16/8/2000 to Contemner 3 and to Contemner 4 in his court on 19th August both have not allowed me to collect my Hero Honda .

3. 7 ] The Contemner No.4  without verifying whether the Investigations , FIR , Complaint filed against me by Contemner No. 3  are  in accordance with   Supreme Court directions took cognizance of the alleged Complaint on the very day of filing of  complaint .

3 . 8 ]   Without even show-causing  me of the Complaint lodged  against me by Summons along with the F.I.R, Charge Sheet  etc. in contravention of Law & Supreme Court order  suo moto  issued N.B.W  on the 16th itself  the very  day of the complaint  lodged in court .

3.9  ] Contemner no. 4 despite briging to him by written Application by Complainant allowed the Contemner no. 3 to keep the Hero Honda Illegally by which act is nothing but a conspiracy intended to coercively Force the Complainant Plead Guilty.

3.10]  Conemner 3 & 4 entered into an tacit compromised understanding /Conpiracy that if the case is adjourned by longer / unusual time  One Month Complainant may be  coerced to Plead Guilty .

3.11]   Depite bringing to  Notice of Conemner no. 4 including Copy of Eleven Directions on 24th August ; continued willfully the contempt of Supreme Court .

4                                     No necessity of prior permission of Advocate General

4.1 ]          In accordance with Article 367  interpretation of not only Constitution of India but also that of all laws made under Constitution  is  bound by  General Clauses Act as adopted by Karnataka  by Mysore General Clauses Act , 1899 amended  in 1949, 1950 & 1953  by Acts VII , X   & XII respectively.

4.2 ]         State Act defines at Section 18 :-  Successors - In any Mysore Act made after the commence- ment of this Act ,it shall be sufficient , for the purpose of indicating the relation of a law to the successors any functionaries   …having perpetual succession to express its relation to the functionaries……..

4.3 ]          Realizing the in-built formalities of Section 15 of Contempts of Courts Act , 1971 it not only delegated its power to respective High Courts  to try Contempt cases against the officials who violate any of the Eleven Directives ; but also allowed  other actions aginst such Contemners like disciplinary action amongst others . The way in which Law Enforcing Officials were infringing the Fundamental Rights of persons accused; Supreme Court thought that no any Advocate Generals , who  are  nothing but  political appointees , may give permission to prosecute the very officials  who are working at the command of his own masters  &  that the necessity of such  permission  may also negate / delay in prosecuting the contemner  have clearly given direction that Contempt shall lye. In other words every Court, Advocate General, Advocates  & common men know that violation of directives of any courts is an contempt of court. The Express inclusion of Contempt of Court & specifying Jurisdictional Courts makes amply clear that any nitty-gritty of Contempt of Courts Act should come across the implementation of its Order. As otherwise it shall be futile to interpret that the present Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Justice A.S.Anand who pronounced the judgement by Bench headed by Justice Kuldip Singh then in 1997 did not know the amplitude , power etc, of a judgement delivered  by them  & the power they derived from Constitution to pronounce such a Judgement .

4 . 4 ]          As all the Advocate Generals of all States & Union Territories including Attorney General representing Central Govt. were the Parties representing the interests of their respective Governments in said case & the Judgement thereafter ; it is the failure on the part of not only the then  Advocate General  but also the present Advocate General having failed in their duties . Should the Contemners insist that AG's permission is required then the Complainant desires to make the AG also as one among Contemner, which may kindly be given by this Court;  opining that   the AG instead of aiding & advising the position of law , he is contravening law , his oath of office & liable to be prosecuted per  Advocates Act read with Judgement in context.

4 . 5 ]         High Court  is as per opening sentence in Sec. 15 ( 1 ) of Contempt Act -In the case of a criminal contempt, ………,……, High Court may on its own motion …….  . ; r/w Clause [1]   of Article 142  is bound to consider this contempt petition , as the Contempt Act , has to give way to Constitutional Obligation of all sub-ordinate courts including High Courts as per Article 141 of Constitution of India  as otherwise it is felt the High Court will be playing in the hands of political appointee AG & his master Govt. ; thereby contravening its Constitutional obligation to Supreme Court  Orders / Judgements , Constitution & their oaths of offices . It is held that when Contemner is subordinate court itself the High Court can act suo moto as is held by Supreme Court in Board of Revenue Vs Vinay Chandra AIR 1981 SC 723 ; & in Sakhdev Singh Vs Teja Singh AIR 1954 SC 186  to name few. Hence it considered opinion of this complainant that Advocate General's permission is not necessary in the present case. It is held

4 . 6 ]     It is submitted further that Section ( 1 )( b ) is held as Directory , not Mandatory ,by  this High Court in Nagaraj Vs Chikka Chennappa  [( 1981 )Cr.LJ.843 ( Karn ) ] .Delhi High Court in  Subhash Chand Vs Aggarwal [( 1984 ) Cr.LJ. 481 ( Del )] & other cases .

4 . 7 ]        Article 144 of Constitution states " All authorities , civil and judicial , in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court ." which again forbids the Advocate General's  intervention  and also that it empowers the High Court to act suo-moto to uphold Rule of Law without any concoctments or hindrances  of any kind which   are nothing but opposed to Majesty of  Courts .

5       P R A Y E R S

Wherefore this Complainant respectfully prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant all the following Prayers in the interest of Equity and Justice :

[   1 ]  To DROP the alleged FIR , Complaint etc filed by Contemner no.3 based on which cognizance is taken by  Contemner No. 4 in CC no. 21762 of  2000, of MMTC-1,   Mayo Hall, Bangalore .

[   2 ] Pass  such exemplary damages upon each of the Contemners proportionate to their role-of-part in this Contempt to be paid to Complainant  within a month , in accordance with direction contained in Para 41 of the said Supreme Court Judgement so that these Contemners or other similar officers should not abet similar crimes in future .

[   3 ] To pass appropriate strictures against  Contemners 1 ,2 & 3 for having not Notified the 11 directions contained in Supreme Court Judgement in all Police Stations in the State despite    lapse of  five years .

 [ 4  ] Direct the DG & IG of Karnataka ,   to initiate Disciplinary Acton against Contemner no. 3 Mr. Joy De D'souza , who has willfully & knowingly continued to violate the Supreme Court Orders despite Complainant alerting the Contempts he is committing .

[   5 ]  Direct the DG & IG of Karnataka to keep the Contemner No. 3 under suspension from forthwith .

[ 6  ] Direct Registrar General or Registrar ( Judicial ) of Karnataka High Court to initiate Disciplinary Action against Contemner No. 4 Mr. M.H.Annayyanavar, who has willfully & knowingly continued to violate the Supreme Court Orders despite Complainant alerting the Contempt's he is committing.

[   7  ] Keep the Conemner No. 4 under suspension from forthwith .

[ 8  ] Issue a writ of Mandamus  Directing  the Contemners 1 & 2 to get notified

the Eleven Directions of Supreme Court , including any other Directions this Court desires to    include, in all Police Stations  & all Police Offices within a month in the State.

[ 9  ]  Direct the Registrar General or Registrar ( Judicial ) of High Court to get Notified the said Eleven Directions of Supreme court in all  Trial, Magistrate , Traffic & other such Courts  including Railway / Bus Stations / Major Traffic Signals & such other places the Court deems appropriate  throughout  the State within one month .

[ 10  ] Direct all Lower Courts & their  Judges that it shall be Contempt of Court, hereafter;

if they take Cognizance of any police Report / complaint / charge sheet / medical certificates including Investigation & Interrogations  which if are not in   accordance with Directions of Supreme court .

[ 11 ]   Direct the Contemner no. 2 the DG & IG of Police to instruct all Police Stations in the State   not to register any FIR , Complaint lodged either by Police or General Public against this Complainant without the express permission of  the present DG & IG or his Successors in office ; as due to this case & its likely resultant effects upon Police may instigate them to harass me by concoted or fabricated cases to stop / obstruct  my Anti-corruption Social works  and to live my peaceful life .

 [12 ] Be pleased to  Pass such other Orders as the Court deems fit in the case and more so to see that the Supreme Court  Judgement  & the Eleven Directions contained therein are  implemented by Conemners and their Successors  in Pith & Substance ; in the interst of complete Justice  .

6                                   I N T E R I M   P R A Y E R S

Wherefore this Complainant respectfully prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant all the following Interim Prayers in the interest of Equity and Justice :

 [ 1 ] Be pleased to call for the Records of the case C.C.no. 21762 /2000 on the File of Conemner No. 4

           

 [2] Direct the Conemner no. 2 to produce all relevant papers , documents including   such matters related to illegal seizure of Hero Honda KA-02-E-3987 by  Contemner no.3 to High Court   for  adjudication .   

7.       Ad-Interim Prayers Ex-Parte .

Wherefore this Complainant respectfully prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant all the following Ad- Interim Prayers in the interest of Equity and Justice :

[   1 ]         As the Complainant is appearing in-person and that he is anew to the Law & Court proceedings ; also that as the matter involves Public Interest ; any nitty-gritty coming acrossincluding any mistakes in this Petition & any absurdities in presentation of the Petition it is prayed to  kindly  wave-off  the same, in the interest of  Justice .

[   2 ]  It is prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to take Cognizance of this Petition forthwith and be pleased to allow all the Ad-interim and Interim Prayers suo moto ,  invoking its inherent Extraordinary  powers as enshrined under Article 226 .

[ 3 ]  Direct the Contemner No. 4 to stay all proceedings including proceedings listed for  26th September 2000 in the matter of  C.C.no. 21762 of 2000 in his Court .

[ 4  ]  Direct the all the Contemners to defend on their own in-person; without either the help of Government or private Advocates.

[ 5 ]  It is humbly prayed that this Petition be treated as Public Interest Litigation ; to prohibit / avoid  the continuity of such Contemtuous    acts of Contemners & by similarly placed  other Law Enforcing officers of not only Police but also the CBI , Customs , Income Tax , Railways , Sales Tax etc  includung Magistrates throughout Karnataka State ; in utter Contempt of Supreme Court Directions upon more than Six Crore People of Karnataka  & temporary criss-crossing people like Tourists & Migrants Day-in-and-out ; and to stop opening of Flood Gate of Contempt Petitions .

PETITION   DRAWN BY ME ;

DATE : 24TH  SEPTEMBER 2000 .                PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

BANGALORE .

VERIFICATION

I  , Digvijay Mote , aged 46 years , do hereby humbly affirm and state that what is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief .

                                                                                 

                                                          

[ Digvijay Mote ]

 Petitioner-In-Person .

AFFIDAVIT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

                                         Criminal Contempt of Case No.                of 2000

Between ;

Mr  Digvijay Mote  [ Party-in Person ]         …………………Complainant .

And

 Mr. M.B.Prakash , I.A.S

Secretary to Government of Karnataka,

Department of Home & Transport; and Three others.

         AFFIDAVIT  VERIFYING THE CONTEMPT  PETITION

I , Digvijay Mote son of  Ramachandra Mote aged about 46 years residing at No. 6, 5th Cross, Rose Garden, Neelasandra , Bangalore.-56 00 47 .do hereby Solemnly state on oath as follows :-

1.                                   I submit that I am the Complainant in this Contempt Petition and I know the facts of  the case that I am deposing hereunder .

2.                                    I submit that the statements made in Paragraphs 1 , 2 , 3 & 4  and sub-paras thereunder of the Contempt Petition are true to the best of my knowledge, Belief and information .

3.                                  I submit that the Annexures  A to C produced along with the Contempt Petitions are true True Copies of the Originals.   Annexure D is a transcribed copy a news article. 

                                                                                              

                                                                                

                                                                                                           DEPONENT

25th September 2000                                    Digvijay  Mote .

 Bangalore                                                      [ Party-in-Person ]     

………                               …………..                          …………………