Full Judgment
Pendse, J.
1. Hon'ble Shri Justice Bharucha and Hon'ble Shri Justice Saldhana by judgment dated July 12, 1991 directed notices to be issued to Kumar Prabhulal Shah to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under the provisions of Sections 191, 209, 210 and 468 read with 471 of the I.P.C. The reasons for issuance of notices are set out in the judgment and need not be repeated. The Division Bench was prima facie satisfied that Shah has committed serious offence in forging the documents and securing an order from the Court on the strength of such forged documents and reaping harvest of the orders of the Court. The Division Bench also found that Shah has surreptitiously removed original papers from the registry of this Court. The Division Bench also issued notice to Shah to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of this Court by interfering with due course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice.
2. The notices are duly served and on behalf of Shah, learned counsel appeared before us. Shah has not cared to file any affidavit in answer to the two notices. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for Shah is that as the Court is inclined to direct prosecution against Shah in a criminal court, it is not necessary to exercise powers under the Contempt of Courts Act. We are inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel even though we are satisfied that the actions of Shah amount to contempt of court. In view of the fact that we are making notice of prosecution absolute, it is not necessary to exercise jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act.
3. It is required to be stated that the show-cause notice dated August 13, 1991 served on Shah to show-cause why prosecution should not be launched, travels beyond what was directed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench had directed issuance of notice to show-cause as to why Shah should not be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 193, 209, 210 and 468 r/w 471 of the I.P.C. The show-cause notice unfortunately, apart from these offences, includes offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 388 of the I.P.C. It is obvious that the show-cause notice travels beyond the direction given by the Division Bench and consequently, while making notice absolute, is required to be restricted only to those offences which are referred to in the judgment.
4. Accordingly, show-cause notice is made partly absolute and the Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to launch prosecution against Kumar Prabhulal Shah in appropriate criminal court for having committed offences punishable under Sections 193, 209, 210 and 468 read with 471 of I.P.C. The Prothonotary and Senior Master is entitled to take assistance of an experienced lawyer for drafting the complaint and lodging it in appropriate criminal court.
5. The show-cause notice issued to Kumar Prabhulal Shah to explain why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be taken, stands discharged.