Read Time: 05 minutes
The contempt petition was filed following an incident in which an individual, Nitin Bansal, displayed aggression and placed a firearm on a table in front of the local commissioner during an inspection of the premises. Even though Bansa clarified that the firearm in question was an air gun, the court held him responsible for intimidating an officer.
The Delhi High Court, recently, initiated a contempt petition against an individual who kept a gun at the table when the local commissioner arrived to inspect the premises.
The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held, “There was no necessity for the pistol to be kept on the table at the time when the Local Commissioner was visiting the premises because keeping a weapon on the table in itself is sufficient to intimidate any person”.
A petition was filed seeking an interim order restraining Ashok Bansal from disposing off 30,000/- tons of industrial coal material, which, per Bina were acquired by her husband through his proprietorship firm.
Per the report of the local commissioner, Nitin Bansal, and Sonu Gupta were present during the inspection. The report indicated that Nitin Bansal became aggressive, displayed a firearm, and placed it on the office table. Consequently, the court directed Nitin Bansal to appear and submit an affidavit explaining the display of a firearm during the execution of a court-ordered commission.
However, Nitin Bansal submitted an affidavit to the court stating that the alleged firearm was an air gun, which did not require licensing under existing regulations. He further asserted that the air gun was used to deter animals, such as monkeys and stray dogs, given the factory’s remote location, and claimed it had been on the table prior to the Local Commissioner’s arrival.
The court opined that even if the air gun had been on the table beforehand, its presence during the Commissioner’s visit could be perceived as intimidating. The court also questioned Bansal’s justification, noting that an air gun without pellets was unlikely to deter animals.
Based on the Local Commissioner’s report and the ASI’s statement, the court concluded that a prima facie case of interference with the administration of justice had been established, potentially amounting to criminal contempt, as Nitin Bansal had obstructed a court officer in performing her duties. Consequently, the Registrar General was instructed to present the case records to the Chief Justice for referral to the Division Bench handling criminal contempt matters against Nitin Bansal.
For Petitioners: Advocates Anuj Saxena, Anuj Ruhela and Prakash SharmaFor Respondents: Advocates H R Khan, Nihal Ahmad and Tushar SwamiCase Title: Bina v Ashok Bansal (O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 186/2024)
Please Login or Register
