Supreme Court reverses acquittal order of Justice Dharnidhar Jha, Patna High Court in double murder accused Prabhunath Singh case

On September 1, 2023, the Supreme Court's bench of Justices S K. Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath pronounced its 8 page long sentencing order in Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar after delivering its 143 page long judgement on August 18, 2023 in the case of an offence committed in the year 1995, almost 28 years old. The Court did not deem it appropriate to award death sentence to Prabhunath Singh, a political leader and a sitting Member of Parliament at the time of offence. He is a four time MP. The Court awarded imprisonment for life to him under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with fine of Rs.20 lakh. He has been awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC along with fine of Rs.5 lacs. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. 

Justice Vikram Nath pronounced the judgment for the Bench comprising of Justices Kaul, Oka and Nath. Disposing off the Appeal, the sentencing order states that the acquittal of Prabhunath Singh recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court was reversed vide judgment dated August 18, 2023 and he was convicted under Section 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Criminal Revision Petition was  initiated by the High Court exercising its suo motu power in the light of the minutes recorded by the Inspecting Judge of Patna Judgeship on May 4, .2009 and resolution of the Standing Committee dated July 14, 2009.

By doing so it has established the incorrectness of the 19 page long judgment and order dated February 2, 2011 passed by Justice Dharnidhar Jha, the single judge of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1345 of 2009, whereby the said Revision Petition was dismissed confirming the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Patna dated October 24, 2008 passed in Sessions Trial Nos. 469 of 2007 and 470 of 2007, acquitting Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 of all the charges. Justice Jha was seized with the judgment dated October 24, 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court III, Patna in S.T. Nos. 469 and 470 both of 2007 arising out of Panapur P.S. Case no. 62 of 1995 by which the learned trial judge acquitted the respondent nos. 1 to 7 of the charges under sections 147, 148, 302, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC and section 27 Arms Act because "the prosecution has totally failed to bring the charges home against them." Concluding his judgement and order, Justice Jha had said, "the revision petition is merit-less and the same is hereby dismissed as I could not find out any element of perversity afflicting the judgment. The view which was taken by the learned trial judge was the most probable view." The Patna fast track court had acquitted Prabhunath Singh and six others for lack of evidence in double murder case of 1995. By now it is amply clear that Supreme Court does not approve of his view and the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Patna.

The prosecution version, as recorded in the FIR in the statement of Rajendra Rai, narrated that the informant along with eight-nine other persons of his village was returning after casting their vote in the election on 25.03.1995 at around 9AM; when they reached south east of his residence, five persons came in a car armed with rifles and guns and stopped the car; Prabhunath Singh, who was the contesting candidate for Bihar People’s Party (BPP), while sitting in the car enquired as to whom all of them had cast their votes; the informant answered that they had cast their votes in favour of Janta Dal Party having symbol of Chakrachap; on hearing this, the car moved towards south and stopped at a little distance.

Prabhunath Singh opened fire from his rifle pointing towards the informant and others and thereafter the car sped away. As a result of the firing, three persons got injured. On the basis of the FIR, investigation was taken up. Inspection was made of the spot of occurrence. Three used cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence, they were sealed and a recovery memo was prepared. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. The injured were provided medical treatment, the doctor prepared the injury report and after two of the injured expired, the post-mortem reports of the two deceased persons were also prepared. Daroga Rai died soon after the incident and his post-mortem was conducted on March 26, 1995. Rajendra Rai died after about five months on 21.08.1995 and his post-mortem was conducted on August 22, 1995.

As Prabhunath Singh was avoiding the arrest, nor was he surrendering as he was the member of the ruling party. The District Magistrate, considering the amount of influence being yielded by the accused, found that it was not feasible to conduct the cases in District Saran at Chapra and hence recommended the transfer of all the six cases to Hazaribagh. In all these cases Prabhunath Singh was an accused. The transfer was approved by the High Court. However, later in the year 2000, upon re-organization of the State of Bihar, as Hazaribagh fell in the State of Jharkhand, the present trial was transferred to District Bhagalpur in Bihar. After 11 years that charges could be framed by the Trial Court on March 26, 2006 against all the accused for offences under various Sections of IPC. On October 24, 2008, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused in both the Sessions Trials bearing no. 469 of 2007 and 470 of 2007. There was no challenge to the judgment of acquittal by the State.  

In its judgement, the Court takes note of the blunder committed by Prabhunath Singh in getting the court witness, Lalmuni Devi, mother of deceased Rajendra Rai abducted ten days before the date fixed for recording her statement. This led to filing of a Habeas Corpus Petition Cr.WJC No. 717 of 2006, Harendra Rai Versus State of Bihar before the High Court. A report submitted by the Inspecting Judge as a result of an unruly incident which occurred in the Trial Court on the date Lalmuni Devi-deposed before the Trial Court and another report of the Inspecting Judge commenting upon the judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court records: "the trial proceeded but again in a most shabby manner, not even complying with the directions of the High Court. The Special Public Prosecutor for the State, instead of getting the witnesses examined before the Court, filed affidavits on their behalf reiterating their earlier statements." 

The Division Bench of Patna High Court which included Justice S.P. Singh had three materials before it namely affidavit of Lalmuni Devi, her statement recorded by the Magistrate on November 20, 2006, the reports of Dr. D,N. Gautam, Additional Director General of Police dated November 30, 2006, December 16, 2006 and January 22, 2007 and the enquiry report by Justice C.K. Prasad, the Inspecting Judge, Bhagalpur dated February 21, 2007. It had rejected the submissions of teh Advocate General and Vindhya Kesari Kumar, senior counsel appearing for Prabhunath Singh as being without any substance or merit.

It emerged that Lalmuni Devi had been abducted along with her husband by Dina Nath Singh (brother of Prabhunath Singh) and Chotelal, MLA from Parsa. She was asked by the abductors to change her statement and if she would not do the same, then Prabhunath Singh would kill her other son (Harendra Rai) as well. She also described how she was taken to Court room where the incident took place in which the men of Prabhunath Singh assaulted her son, daughter-in-law and son-in-law who wanted to take her with them. The Judge was sitting in Court and in his presence her family members were assaulted but the Judge said nothing. She was also threatened that she would also be killed. She was again taken by Prabhunath Singh and his men from the Court on November 3, 2006. She also stated that she had not given any statement on November 3, 2006 and only her thumb impressions were taken as she was frightened and afraid that she might lose her other son, daughter-in-law and son-in-law who were being continuously assaulted. It was after three-four days that she reached her home. She also narrated in her statement in the enquiry report about the working of Prabhunath Singh and that he was again preparing to get her abducted. Dr. D.N. Gautam, the Additional Director General of Police, had condemned the report of D.I.G., Saran range, Chapra in his report. He had concluded the report by observing that the investigation of the two cases was quite casual and the supervision and control of the investigation was also pitiable. He had also recorded the statements of Lalmuni Devi and Rama Rai which was again reproduced in the order and the same is not being repeated as it is more or less the same as recorded above. Dr. Gautam in his report also commented that the sequence of events started only after the application under Section 311 CrPC was allowed and Lalmuni Devi was called as a court witness on November 3, 2006. 

It may be recalled that when CRLMP. No. 5711, the Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) was filed in the Supreme Court in 2012 arising from the judgement and order of Patna High Court dated December 2, 2011 in CRRP No.1345/2009 (Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, upon hearing the bench of Justices H. L. Dattu and C. K. Prasad passed an order saying, "List before a Bench of which Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K.Prasad, is not a Member". 

Notably, Justice C.K. Prasad was the Inspecting Judge of the judgeship who called for reports and ordered an enquiry in the matter of "newspaper report about the fracas created in the Court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur while the court proceedings were going on" in the case pertaining to Prabhunath Singh. After a thorough and painstaking enquiry, Justice Prasad gave a report on February 21, 2007 noting the circumstances in which the trial arising from Masrakh (Panapur) P.S. Case No.62 of 1996, that should normally have taken place at Chapra, was first transferred to Hazaribagh and when as a result of the bifurcation of the State Hazaribagh fell in Jharkhand, it was brought to Bhagalpur. After taking into account the reports submitted by the District and Session Judge, the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, the Public Prosecutor, statements of witnesses and the report of Dr. D.N. Gautam to whom he entrusted the enquiry. In his report Justice Prasad found and held that “I do not have the slightest hesitation in endorsing the reports of the District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur as also the Additional Director General of Police that the witness Lalmuni Devi was not produced under proper security. She was frightened and under heavy stress prior to her examination. She was intimidated inside the Court room prior to her examination.  She was not normal and the Court atmosphere was highly tensed and abnormal. The materials on record led him to conclude that evidence of Lalmuni Devi cannot be said to have been voluntarily made. I am of the considered opinion that had the Presiding Officer of the Court exercised little discretion, this untoward incident ought not have taken place. The Presiding Officer of the Court having found that the witness was not looking normal and, in fact, looking frightened and having not been produced under proper security, he ought to have taken these facts seriously and prevented deflecting the Court of Justice. The direction of this Court to record evidence cannot be construed to mean that the Court was obliged to record her statement despite the fact that she was produced without proper security. I am of the opinion that the Presiding Officer of the Court had also failed miserably in the matter."

The said Habeas Corpus Petition was decided by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court on March 13, 2007. The charges could be framed only on May 26, 2006 by the Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court II, Bhagalpur. By order passed by the High Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 717 of 2007, the trial was again transferred from Bhagalpur to Patna with five directions which are contained in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment. After the judgement, the actual proceedings started on June 13, 2008 before the Trial Court at Patna. The trial was re-heard and the witnesses who had been examined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur were also recalled or reproduced for their evidence.

Notably, the Trial Court did not find it necessary to summon the Investigating Officer. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of the charges but the I.O. of the case or the officer who had recorded the fardbeyan of one of the deceased Rajendra Rai, was not examined. Rajendra Rai (informant) who had died in Patna Medical College Hospital (PMCH) and the doctor who had held postmortem examination, i.e., Dr. B.D. Prasad, a doctor of PMCH was not examined.

Lalmuni Devi's second statement was recorded on September 29, 2008. After the incident on 25.03.1995 at about 9 A.M., the three injured were taken to the State Hospital Camp, Panapur. The Fard Bayan was registered on the oral statement given by one of the injured (later deceased) Rajendra Rai as recorded by Sub-Inspector N.N. Thakur at 10.30 AM. The said Fard Bayan was signed by the injured Rajendra Rai, two witnesses Narendra Singh, Sanjiv Kumar Singh and by the officer in-charge, Panapur Police Station, Camp Panapur. The Fard Bayan also bears the endorsement of Sub-Inspector N.N. Thakur forwarding it to the Police Station In-charge Masrakh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for registering the report. Contents of the Fard Bayan have already been reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment. On its basis, FIR was registered at P.S. Panapur as Case No. 62 of 1995 on March 26, 1995. The FIR contains endorsement of various authorities and Courts of its perusal. It also bears the endorsement that Section 302 IPC was added on March 30, 1995. 

The Supreme Court refers to Latin Maxim “qui facit per alium facit per se” means "he who acts through another, acts himself" to conclude that the abduction was the work of Prabunath Singh.

The conclusions recorded in the judgement is based on analysis of the evidence in the light of the legal position which is as follows:
a) Fard Bayan of Rajendra Rai, which was later converted into an FIR, is admissible in evidence and is to be read as a dying declaration or his last statement.  
b) The tainted investigation shows the high-handedness of the accused-Prabhunath Singh, who was a powerful person, being a sitting M.P. of the Ruling Party.
c) The prosecution had established, even through the hostile witnesses, that the date, time, and place of incidence as given in the Fard Bayan of Rajendra Rai were fully established. The only issue was with regard to the identity of the assailants.
d) The post-mortem reports, show that the death of Rajendra Rai and Daroga Rai was homicidal in nature. The medico legal reports supported the prosecution’s story to the extent that the injuries were caused by a fire arm, which proved fatal for two out of the three injured.
e) Adverse inference against the accused is drawn in view of their subsequent conduct.
f) Judicial notice is taken of the judgment in the Habeas Corpus petition dated July 13, 2007 regarding the conduct of the accused, the investigating agency, the Public Prosecutor and the Presiding Officer conducting the trial.
g) The two administrative reports of the respective judges, who were constitutional functionaries, also have to be given due credence and cannot be ignored outright regarding the conduct of the accused, public prosecutor and the Presiding Officer conducting the Trial.
h) The statement of Lalmuni Devi is found to be reliable, and the Courts below wrongly discarded it on the ground that it was hearsay and tutored.
i) The dying declaration and the statement of Lalmuni Devi fully establish that it was Prabhunath Singh, who had caused the injuries from his firearm weapon, which proved to be fatal for two out of the three injured and also caused injury to the third surviving injured, namely Lalmuni Devi.
j) Prabhunath Singh is thus liable to be convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder and attempt to murder.
k) The rest of the accused, although named in the chargesheet after due investigation, since their names were not reflected either in the Fard Bayan of the deceased Rajendra Rai (dying declaration) or in the statement of CW-1, therefore, their acquittal is not disturbed.

The judgement concluded that the accused-respondent no.2 is convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for the murders of Daroga Rai and Rajendra Rai and also for attempt to murder of injured Devi. The Secretary, Department of Home, State of Bihar and the Director General of Police, Bihar were directed to ensure that Prabhunath Singh was taken into custody and produced before the Court for hearing on the question of sentence in view of Section 235 of Criminal Procedure Code on September 1, 2023. On Auguts 25, 2023, Prabhunath Singh was permitted by the Court to appear virtually through video conferencing for hearing on question of sentence, instead of the physical appearance. His prayer to permit him to appear virtually was allowed considering his health conditions and the fact that he was already undergoing life sentence in another murder case. His Crl.M.P.No.169246 of 2023 was allowed for him present virtually from jail.

The sentencing order dated September 1, 2023 observes that Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 provides that whenever fine is imposed as a sentence, the Court may while passing the judgment, order the whole or in part of the fine recovered to be applied as per clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) thereof. Clause (a) provides for defraying the expenses incurred in the prosecution. We are not inclined to grant any such expenses to the State considering the fact that the State in fact did not prosecute the case fairly, rather throughout assisted the accused. Clause (b) and (d) also will have no application, however, under clause (c) considering the conduct of accused no.2, further the mental, physical, and financial damages suffered by the victim’s family, the two deceased and the injured, we direct that the fine awarded to be paid as damages in the following manner:
a) We award damages of Rs.10 lacs each to the legal heirs of two deceased Rajendra Rai and Daroga Rai. The Trial Court will get a preliminary enquiry conducted with regard to the legal heirs of the two deceased and the amount will be disbursed to the legal heirs as per the law of Succession.
b) Similarly, the amount of fine awarded under section 307 IPC of Rs.5 lacs would be disbursed in the same manner by the Trial Court to the victim if she is alive and if not, to her legal heirs.

It also directed that "Considering the conduct of the State as noticed in the judgment dated August 18, 2023 and also the amount of trauma and harassment faced by the victim’s family, we are of the view that in addition to the damages awarded under section 357 CrPC further compensation be awarded under section 357-A CrPC. The State of Bihar will compensate the legal heirs of the two deceased and the injured if alive otherwise her legal heirs in the like amount of the fine Criminal Appeal No. 1726 of 2015 awarded above i.e. Rs.10 lacs each to the legal heirs of the deceased Rajendra Rai and Daroga Rai and Rs.5 lacs to the injured Smt. Devi or her legal heirs, as the case may be. The amount so deposited will be disbursed in the same manner as provided above for disbursement of the damages under section 357 CrPC."

It further directed that the amount of fine and compensation is to be deposited with the Trial Court within two months from today failing which the same shall be got recovered as arrears of land revenue by the Trial Court.

The compliance report is to be submitted to the Supreme Court by the Trial Court within four months. The Registry is required to circulate the compliance report within the time allowed and the matter is going to be listed with office report for directions.



 

Supreme Court censures conduct of NCLAT's Judicial Member Rakesh Kumar, accepts the apology of Alok Srivastava, NCLAT Technical Member

On October 30, 2023, Supreme Court's Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India censured the conduct of Rakesh Kumar, Judicial Member, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and accepted the unconditional apology of Alok Srivastava, Technical Member, NCLAT in the case under Contempt of Courts Act. 

The Court's order reads: "We have, therefore, no manner of doubt that the Bench of the NCLAT has acted
in willful defiance of the order despite the fact that its attention was drawn to the order of this Court.The Member (Technical) has tendered an unconditional apology stating that control over the procedure of the Court, particularly on matters which are mentioned rests with the Member (Judicial) who has training and experience in judicial matters. Bearing in mind the unconditional apology which has been tendered before this Court we do not wish to take this matter to a further stage having held that there was a breach of the order of this Court. We are of the considered view that the matter should be allowed to rest there by accepting the apology of the Member (Technical)."

The order states, "As regards the Member (Judicial) we have already noted in the previous order of this Court that what has been stated is contrary to the record. We find that this has been compounded by what has been stated in the affidavit filed tendered before this Court in pursuance of the previous order. Paragraph 10 of the affidavit of the Member (Judicial) takes note of the fact that when some counsel tried to mention the matter, neither any order of the Supreme Court was filed with the Registry or with the Court Master nor was any order handed over to the Bench by the parties before assembling of the Bench. The affidavit further states that following the practice of the NCLAT, the deponent did not entertain any attempt at mentioning by the counsel and that the order of this Court dated 13 October 2023 was not on the record before the Bench presided by the deponent on 13 October 2023. What the affidavit does not state is that a conscious effort was made by the Bench to prevent the order of this Court being placed on the record despite the fact that the court was apprised of the passing of the order by this Court in the morning session. We censure the conduct of the Member (Judicial). We would rest the matter at that level." 

The order further states, "As regards, the Scrutiniser (Mr VM Birajdar), it is evident that in the order of this Court dated 26 September 2023, there was a clear direction that the interim order passed by the NCLAT on 21 September 2023 would stand vacated. There was a further direction that any action that would be taken in pursuance of the result of the AGM would be subject to the pending appeal. The Scrutiniser was duty bound to implement the order of this Court. Instead, what emerges from the record was that after the order dated 26 September 2023, the AGM took place on 29 September, 2023. The Court is apprised of the fact that a limited window was made available on 29 September 2023 for those who wished to vote to do so. At 5.55 PM on 29 September 2023, an email was addressed by the Scrutiniser to the Company Secretary of Finolex Cables Limited seeking a legal opinion about the manner in which the votes which were cast at the AGM would have to be treated. By then, voting had concluded on 28 September 2023. The Scrutiniser states that a legal opinion was obtained by the company on the basis of which he took steps to withhold the result of the AGM. The beneficiary of this action was Mr Deepak Kishan Chhabria, who was then acting as Chairman-cum-Managing Director."

The order concludes: "We have no manner of doubt that the Scrutiniser has acted in concert with Deepak Kishan Chhabria to delay the declaration of the result of the AGM, effectively in breach of the directions that were issued by this Court on 26 September 2023. We are of the view that such action by commercial interests must be dealt with firmly so as to serve a clear reminder that the process of this Court cannot be allowed to be misused for partisan purposes in commercial disputes involving warring factions. We accordingly order and direct that Mr Deepak Kishan Chhabria shall pay a sum quantified at Rs One crore to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. Mr V.M. Birajdar shall pay a sum quantified at Rs Ten lakhs to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within a period of four weeks." 

Prior to concluding, the order states that "we record the statement of Mr P.S. Patwalia, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Member (Judicial) that the Member (Judicial) has tendered his resignation from office by a letter addressed to the Chairperson of the NCLAT and to the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs today. The Scrutiniser has tendered an unconditional apology through Mr Khambata. Mr. Deepak Kishan Chhabria has also tendered an unconditional apology through Mr Shyam Divan, senior counsel. Since the proceedings are being closed, we reiterate the directions which were issued in the earlier order of this Court setting aside the judgment which was delivered by the Bench of the NCLAT on 13 October 2023. The proceedings in the appeal shall now be listed before a Bench presided over by the Chairperson of the NCLAT for hearing and final disposal of the appeal."

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) Members Rakesh Kumar, Alok Srivastava facing action under Contempt of Courts Act

A contempt petition was filed in the Supreme Court on October 3, 2023. It was registered on October 10, 2023. On October 13, 2023, the matter came up before a 3-Judge Bench of 50th Chief Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. On October 18, 2023, the Bench passed an order saying, "We are prima facie of the view that Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Judicial) and Dr Alok Srivastava, Member (Technical) of the NCLAT are liable to be proceeded against in the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. We accordingly issue a notice to show cause to Mr Rakesh Kumar, Member (Judicial) and Dr Alok Srivastava, Member (Technical) of the NCLAT to show cause as to why they should not be committed under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 for having willfully defied the directions of this Court. They shall remain personally present before this Court on 30 October 2023 at 10.30 am, by which date, they shall submit their replies to the notice." The matter is listed for further hearing on 30 October 2023. It has set aside the judgment of the NCLAT dated 13 October 2023 in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. It order reads: "We consequently direct that the appeal shall be heard afresh by a Bench presided over by the Chairperson of NCLAT."

The October 18 order records the chain of events in the Court. On 13 October 2023, a contempt petition was moved before this Court on the ground that despite the order of this Court, the declaration of the result of the Annual General Meeting (the company is Finolex Cables Limited) was being deferred till a judgment was rendered by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal so as to defeat the order of this Court. Accordingly on 13 October 2023, this Court issued a direction in the following terms: “5 The scruitinizer shall, in compliance with the order of this Court proceed to declare the result of the Annual General Meeting which was held on 29 September 2023 forthwith. 6 The NCLAT shall proceed to declare its judgment in the pending appeal after it is duly apprised of the fact that the result of the Annual General Meeting has been declared.”

It underlines that the above direction makes it abundantly clear that (i) the scrutinizer was under an obligation to declare the result of the AGM which was held on 29 September 2023 forthwith; and (ii) NCLAT was directed to proceed to the declaration of its judgment after it was duly apprised of the fact that the result of the AGM has been declared.  In the afternoon session on 13 October 2023, this Court was apprised, in the course of an urgent mentioning, that despite the fact that the order of this Court was uploaded at 1.55 pm and the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant produced the order before the NCLAT at 2 pm with a request that the judgment should not be delivered until the report of the scrutinizer is made available, the Bench of the NCLAT proceeded to deliver the judgment. 

In this backdrop, the Court observed that:
“4 The Court has been apprised of the fact that the Bench of the NCLAT consisting of Mr Rakesh Kumar and Dr Alok Srivastava proceeded to deliver the order. If what is stated is correct, this will clearly constitute the defiance of the order of this Court by the NCLAT.”
5 The Court also noted that the report of the scrutinizer was uploaded at 2.40 pm on 13 October 2023. This was after the order of the NCLAT was pronounced.
6 In this backdrop, this Court directed that an enquiry shall be conducted by the Chairperson of the NCLAT after due verification of the facts from the Judges who constituted the Bench of the Appellate Tribunal on the following aspects:
“(i) That the order of this Court dated 13 October 2023 passed in the morning session was drawn to the attention of the two Judges;
(ii) If that is so, the circumstances in which the Judges proceeded to pronounce the judgment despite the clear mandate of the order of this Court which was passed in the morning session.”

Pursuant to the order of this Court, Justice Ashok Bhushan, the learned Chairperson of the NCLAT has upon due verification from the Judges submitted a report to this Court. The report alludes to two separate statements which have been made before the Chairperson. 

The statement by Mr Rakesh Kumar, Member (Judicial) is recorded in paragraph 3 of the report in the following terms:
“Justice Rakesh Kumar, Member (Judicial) has given a response vide his letter dated 16.10.2023 which was received by me during lunch hours of 16.10.2023. In the response, the Member (Judicial) has stated “I may inform that on Friday in the Supplementary Cause List dated 13.10.2023 at 2 PM Company Appeal (AT) No 64/2020 (Deepak Chhabaria and Another) was listed under the caption “For Judgment” for its pronouncement. The said supplementary cause list was uploaded and published on one day earlier i.e. Thursday, 12.10.2023. My Lord is aware that normal procedure which is being followed in Bench of this Tribunal is that mentioning is entertained after the pronouncement of Judgment(s)/Order(s). I am not holding a constitutional post and as such I am required to follow the procedure. Accordingly as per procedure established here Judgment was pronounced on Friday i.e.13.10.2023.”

The statement by Dr Alok Srivastava, Member (Technical) to the Chairperson is in the following terms:
“On 13.10.2023, when the Presiding Judge and I entered the Court Room No II in the post-lunch session, it was jam-packed with lawyers and there was unusually high noise in the court room. A total 26 cases in the Supplementary Cause List and 18 cases in the Daily Cause List were listed under the categories.“ For Judgment/For Admission (Fresh Cases)/For Admission (After Notice)/For Orders/for Hearing” which had to be taken up in the post-lunch session. The practice adopted in NCLAT is to have “mentionings” after pronouncement of judgment(s) listed in the cause list. As the proceedings for the post-lunch session commenced, and the “For Judgment” case CA(AT) No.64 of 2020 was called out (as is the practice to take up “For Judgment” cases in the beginning), some lawyers started to intervene on which the Presiding Judge commented that whatever you want to file, please bring it on record. Thereafter, the pronouncement of the said judgment was completed. It may be pointed out that no lawyer conveyed the judgment orally to me during the lunch hour when I was available in my office chamber, nor copy of the said order was provided to the Court Master. If this would have been done, the unfortunate situation may not have arisen. I respectfully submit that I hold the Hon’ble Supreme Court in highest regard and esteem and there has been no intention to disobey the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. I deeply regret that such a situation arose in the matter and offer sincere apology for the same.”

The Member (Technical) has adverted to the events which transpired before the NCLAT in the appeal on 13 October 2023. Paragraph 5 of the report reads as follows:
“I have taken the response given by the Judicial Member as well as the Technical Member. Company Appeal (AT) No.64 of 2020 was listed for pronouncement in Court No.II before the Bench constituted of Judicial Member and Technical Member. After the Court assembled, Learned Counsel for the parties who were present in the Court sought to intervene to make a request to the Bench, however, the Bench proceeded to pronounce the judgment not permitting the mentioning by the Learned Counsels. Copy of the order dated 13.10.2023 was not given either to the Court Officer or to the Bench. The Bench did not accept the request made on behalf of the Counsel and proceeded to pronounce the judgment. The judgment was pronounced in ignorance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 13.10.2023.”
10 The report of the Chairperson has also adverted to an order dated 16 October 2023 passed by the Bench of the NCLAT subsequently, in the following terms:
“16.10.2023: In aforesaid appeal on 13.10.2023, Judgment was pronounced. In the evening, the Registry brought to the notice an e-mail dated 13.10.2023 issued at 05.35 PM addressed to Registrar NCLAT enclosing therewith an order dated 13.10.2023, passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No.1195/2023 in C.A. No.6108/2023. After the order was produced we perused the same and we noticed that Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order in paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 6 had directed that Judgment in pending appeal shall be delivered by the NCLAT after it is duly apprised of the fact that the result of Annual General Meeting has been declared. In view of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court it is imperative for us to pass an order for Suspending the Judgment of this court dated 13.10.2023 till this appellate Tribunal is duly apprised of the fact that the result of the Annual General Meeting has been declared or subject to order/direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

There are two affidavits before the Court at the present stage:

(i) A “limited affidavit” which has been filed on behalf of the first respondent; and
(ii) An affidavit in rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner.

The Court records that it heard Mukul Rohatgi, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Ranjeet Kumar, senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Shyam Divan and Ramji Srinivasan, senior counsel on behalf of the contesting respondents. Darius Khambata, senior counsel has appeared on behalf of the scrutinizer.

Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterates, as was submitted before this Court when it passed its order dated 13 October 2023 in the second session that Ankur Saigal, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had produced the order of this Court
before the NCLAT at 2 pm with a request that the judgment should not be delivered until the report of the scrutinizer is made available. This was specifically recorded in paragraph 3 of the order dated 13 October 2023. 

Ramji Srinivasan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant before the NCLAT has fairly stated before this Court that the order of this Court which was passed on 13 October 2023 was duly communicated to the contesting parties. Moreover, Mr Ramji Srinivasan also stated that at about 2.15 pm when the Bench of the NCLAT assembled, he personally sought to tender a copy of the order passed by this Court on 13 October 2023 in the morning session to the Bench of the NCLAT and apprised the Bench of the fact that this Court had specifically directed that the judgment of the NCLAT shall be delivered only after the Court was apprised of the results of the AGM. However, as things stand, the Bench of the NCLAT proceeded to declare the judgment. Ramji Srinivasan further states that he apprised the Bench that the representative of the petitioner herein had already voted against the resolution at the AGM.

Apart from the statements which have been made by the senior counsel before this Court, the affidavit which has been filed by the first respondent contains the following averments:
“On 13.10.2023, the Contempt Petition was preliminary heard by this Hon’ble Court around 12.20 pm. On 13.10.2023, passed its first order on that date, which became available at around
1.55 pm (“First Order”). This Hon’ble Court directed Respondent No.2 to declare the result of the AGM which was held on 29.09.2023 forthwith. This Hon’ble Court directed that the Learned NCLAT shall proceed to declare its judgment in the pending appeal after it is duly apprised of the fact that the result of the AGM has been declared. The directions as dictated in open court by this Hon’ble Court in the First Order were communicated to Respondent No.1 through his Advocates at around 12.30 pm. Respondent No.1 immediately called the Company Secretary of FCL, to convey the directions to Respondent No.2.”

The affidavit further states that on 13 October 2023, the report of the scrutinizer was prepared and was sought to be uploaded on the website of the Stock Exchanges in compliance of the order of this Court, but as the official servers of BSE Limited and National Stock Exchange of India Limited took time to respond, the report was uploaded at 2.41 pm and 2.44 pm respectively. The first respondent has disclosed what transpired before the NCLAT after the order of this Court dated 13 October in the following terms:
“At around 02.15 pm, when the NCLAT Appeal was called out ‘for judgment’, the Ld. Senior Counsel representing me informed the Learned NCLAT about the First Order and the directions contained therein. It was also informed to NCLAT that petitioner had voted against resolution No.4. It was also informed that the Consolidated Scruitinzer’s Report was being uploaded. The Learned NCLAT proceeded to pronounce the  operative part of the Judgment dated 13.10.2023 (“NCLAT Judgment”), which occurred at around 2:15 pm. The NCLAT Judgment was only made available on the official website of the Learned NCLAT, at 4.30 pm and it was only after that time that it was even made public.” (emphasis supplied)

The Court observes: We will first deal with the report which has been submitted before this Court
by the Chairperson of the NCLAT. The Presiding Judge, Mr Rakesh Kumar, Member (Judicial) states that the appeal was listed for pronouncement of judgment in the supplementary cause list which was uploaded on 12 October 2023. He states that the normal procedure which is followed in the tribunal is that mentioning is entertained after the pronouncement of judgments/orders and since he is “not holding a constitutional post” as such he is “required to follow the procedure”. The Member (Judicial) has therefore stated that “as per the procedure established here” the judgment was pronounced on 13 October 2023. 

The Member (Technical) on the other hand states that when the proceedings were called out in the post-lunch session in the case which was listed for judgment, “some lawyers started to intervene on which the Presiding Judge commented that whatever you want to file, please bring it on record”, after which, the pronouncement of the judgment was made. The Member (Technical) has tendered an unconditional apology to this Court. These facts are conspicuously absent in the statement of the Member (Judicial). 

Neither the statement of the Member (Judicial) nor the statement which has been tendered by the Member (Technical) refer to the fact that the order dated 13 October 2023 passed by this Court in the morning session was communicated to the Bench of the NCLAT together with the directions which were contained therein. In paragraph 3 of the order dated 13 October 2023 passed in the afternoon session, the statement of senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Bench of the NCLAT was apprised of the order of this Court in the afternoon session was recorded. This is also the clear case of the first respondent on affidavit since he has stated that around 2.15 pm when the NCLAT appeal was called out for judgment, the senior counsel representing him informed the Bench of the NCLAT of the order which was passed by this Court earlier and the directions which were contained therein. Neither the statement of the Member (Judicial) nor the statement of the Member (Technical) reveals this to the Chairperson of the NCLAT. In fact, the statement of the Member (Judicial) would seem to indicate that no mentioning is permitted at all before the declaration of judgment as a consequence of which the judgment was delivered without hearing any counsel on the order passed by this Court. Likewise, the statement of the Member (Technical) indicates that while some lawyers had attempted to intervene, the Presiding Officer had not permitted such an intervention and had proceeded to pass the judgment. The matter does not rest there.

On 16 October 2023, the Bench of the NCLAT passed an order recording that the Registry of the Tribunal had brought to its notice an email dated 13 October 2023 issued at 5.35 pm enclosing a copy of the order dated 13 October 2023 passed by this Court. The NCLAT has stated that after the order was produced, it had perused it and noticed that this Court had issued directions to the effect that judgment in the pending appeal shall be delivered by NCLAT after it is duly apprised of the fact that the result of the AGM is being declared. The NCLAT has proceeded to pass an order for suspending the judgment which it pronounced on 13 October 2023.

The Court observed: We are constrained to observe that the order dated 16 October 2023 purports to create an impression that the Bench of the NCLAT was apprised of the order passed by this Court for the first time when the email was received at 5.35 pm on 13 October 2023. This prima facie is a falsehood since it has emerged before this Court, both on the statements of the counsel as well as on affidavit that the Bench of the NCLAT was duly apprised of the order passed by this Court on 13 October 2023 in the morning session when the appeal was taken up at around 2.15 pm for pronouncement of judgment. We are, therefore, prima facie, of the view that the Members of the NCLAT have (i) failed to disclose facts to the Chairperson of the NCLAT who was under a duty to carry out an enquiry in pursuance of the judicial order passed by this Court; and (ii) incorrectly sought to create a record in the order dated 16 October 2023 that the order of this Court was drawn to the notice of the Bench only at 5.35 pm on 13 October 2023.

It observed: We will deal with the consequential steps which should be taken by this
Court and the action which has to be adopted in pursuance of what ha
transpired in these proceedings. The manner in which the NCLAT has proceeded to deliver judgment in defiance of the directions of the Court is unbecoming of a judicial tribunal. NCLAT is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. It was duty bound to comply with the order of this Court. It was apprised of the fact that this Court had passed an order in the morning session on 13 October 2023 to the effect that it shall proceed to declare judgment after being apprised of the results of the AGM. The statements made by the Member (Judicial) before the Chairperson of NCLAT seem to indicate that he did not permit mentioning in accordance with the practice of his Bench to the effect that mentioning is taken up after judgments are delivered. The Member (Technical) indicates that while some lawyers had sought to intervene, the Presiding Judge had not heard them. Both these statements are belied by the fact that it is common ground between the parties, who are seriously contesting a dispute before NCLAT, that the Bench was dully apprised of the order of this Court when it assembled at around 2.15 pm before the judgment was pronounced. Moreover, the passing of the further order on 16 October 2023 compounds the situation. If indeed the judgment had been declared after the NCLAT was duly apprised of the result of the AGM, there was no occasion for it to suspend the operation of its judgment. The Members forming part of the Bench have not purported to say so. In this view of the matter, insofar as the lis is concerned, we are of the view that it is necessary for this Court to ensure that the dignity of the Court is maintained. A party cannot be allowed by recourse to devious means to obviate compliance with a solemn order passed by this Court. 

The Court observed: "We clarify that we have not entered any finding on the merits of the rival contentions of the parties in the pending appeal. This Court has been constrained to pass this order in extraordinary circumstances which we have referred to above."

In the light of Court's directions, now Justice (retd.) Ashok Bhushan, the Chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal National Company Law Tribunal (NCLAT) headed Bench will have to hear the appeal afresh. Justice Bhushan retired as judge of the Supreme Court of India on July 4, 2021 and November 8, 2021, he was appointed as the Chairperson of the NCLAT within four months of his retirement as judge.

Prior to his appointment as Member (Judicial), NCLAT on May 17, 2022, Rakesh Kumar was judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court till December 31, 2020. He was transferred to Andhra Pradesh High Court from Patna High Court on November 8, 2019 amidst a huge controversy.

After an 11-Judge Bench of the Patna High Court suspended the operation of an order passed by Justice Rakesh Kumar highlighting corruption in the judicial system, a full Bench quashed the same. Justice Kumar had ordered a CBI probe and an enquiry by the Patna district judge into how a former IAS officer whom he had denied anticipatory bail in a corruption case was granted regular bail by a trial court. A full bench of the Patna High Court, headed by Chief Justice A.P. Sahi, set aside Justice Kumar's order, terming it as an instance of judicial and administrative overreach and a complete nullity.  The bench declared the order "to be coram non judice". However, the High court's full bench restored judicial work to Justice Kumar that he had been stripped of the day he passed his order questioning the grant of regular bail to the former IAS officer by the trial court a day after Justice Kumar and Chief Justice AP Shahi reportedly met 46th Chief Justice of India. Justice Kumar had passed an order on August 28, 2019 order, taking suo motu cognisance of the bail granted by a lower court to the retired IAS officer in a corruption case. He took up and disposed of an anticipatory bail plea filed by former IAS officer KP Ramaiah in connection with the multi-crore Bihar Mahadalit Vikas Mission Fund Scam. By an earlier order dated March 23, 2018, Ramaiah’s plea was already dismissed by the High Court.  During the proceeding, Justice Kumar took on record a news report published in Dainik Jagran, a Hindi newspaper whereby, on the date that Ramaiah surrendered before the trial court, the regular Special Judge (Vigilance) went on leave. Thereafter, Ramaiah surrendered and was granted bail by the judge on the same date. Taking note of the turn of the events, Justice Kumar had opined that the way Ramaiah was granted bail required a deeper probe. Justice Kumar ordered an inquiry to be conducted by the District Judge, Patna to check and verify the news report. He also ordered an inquiry as to whether on the date of granting bail, the regular vigilance court was on leave due to a genuine cause or went on leave in a calculated way.  Additionally, the District Judge was also asked to examine the record of cases disposed of by the in-charge judge in the last six months. Setting aside Justice Kumar's order the High Court's full bench headed by Chief Justice Sahi said, "A wrong order requires setting aside if it has travelled beyond the objective boundaries and has far-reaching consequences in setting a trend which no law recognizes.  The passing of such an order has the inherent danger of creating uncertainty and a feeling that all things can be set right on exercise of authority by a judge even though he may not have legal power to do so." Subsequently. Supreme Court Collegium recommended transfer of Patna High Court Chief Justice Sahi to the Madras High Court, and it recommended the transfer of Justice Kumar to the Andhra Pradesh High Court.  

As to Dr. Alok Srivastava, Member (Technical), NCLAT, he was Union Law Secretary and Secretary, Department of Justice before joining of NCLAT. As an IAS officer, he was to retire in June 2020 but he took voluntary retirement and joined as a Member, NCLAT on February 14, 2020.

Earlier, upon hearing the matter related to the order by NCLAT members, the Supreme Court had passed the following order on October 13, 2023:

"In the course of the morning session today, the following order was passed by this Court:
“1 The order passed by this Court on 20 September 2023 sets aside the order of the NCLAT to the extent that it directed the restoration of the status quo ante at a stage when the arguments were concluded and the matter was reserved for judgment. However, this Court observed that all actions which may be taken would abide by the final result of the proceedings before NCLAT.
2 We are prima facie of the view that the mandate of the order cannot be defeated by deferring the declaration of the result till a judgment is rendered by NCLAT.
3 We accordingly issue notice returnable on 30 October 2023.
4 Subject to such further directions as may be issued by this Court, personal presence of the contemnor(s) is presently dispensed with.
5 The scrutinizer shall, in compliance with the order of this Court proceed to declare the result of the Annual General Meeting which was held on 29 September 2023 forthwith.
6 The NCLAT shall proceed to declare its judgment in the pending appeal after it is duly apprised of the fact that the result of the Annual General Meeting has been declared.”

2. The above order of this Court was uploaded at 1.55 pm this afternoon. 

3. Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel and Mr Shikhil Suri, counsel joined in stating that counsel, Mr Ankur Saigal (who is personally present before this Court) produced the order of this Court before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) at 2 pm with a
request that the judgment should not be delivered until report of the scrutinizer is made available. 

4. The Court has been apprised of the fact that the Bench of the NCLAT consisting of Mr Rakesh Kumar and Dr Alok Srivastava proceeded to deliver the order. If what is stated is correct, this will clearly constitute the defiance of the order of this Court by the NCLAT.

5. At this stage we are not commenting on the merits of the submissions which have been made.

6. The Court is apprised that the scrutinizer report was uploaded at 2.40 pm.

7. We direct that an enquiry shall be conducted on the above allegations by the Chairperson of the NCLAT. A report shall be submitted before this Court by 5 pm on 16 October 2023 after specifically verifying the facts from the Judges who constituted the Bench of the NCLAT.

8. The Chairperson of the NCLAT shall specifically verify:
(i) That the order of this Court dated 13 October 2023 passed in the morning session was drawn to the attention of the two Judges;
(ii) If that is so, the circumstances in which the Judges proceeded to pronounce the judgment despite the clear mandate of the order of this Court which was passed in the morning session. 

9. We are passing this order in extraordinary circumstances, upon an urgent mentioning being made in that regard."

Prior to this on September 26, 2023, the 3- judge bench of 50th Chief Justice, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed an order in Orbit Electricals Private Limited Vs. Deepak Kishan Chhabria (Civil Appeals 6108 of 2023 and 6176 of 2023) allowing the appeals. The order is as under: 

"The National Company Law Tribunal1 dismissed the application filed by the first respondent for the grant of interim relief by an order dated 31 December 2019. The first respondent is in appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Admittedly, no interim relief operated in favour of the first respondent during the pendency of the appeal.

2 The appeal has been heard and orders were reserved by the NCLAT on 21 September 2023. However, while reserving orders, the NCLAT has directed the parties “to maintain status quo as was available prior to EOGM dated 03.05.2019” till the judgement is delivered. No reasons have been indicated by the NCLAT even prima facie for issuing the interim order, particularly in the context of the fact that there was no interim relief operating since the dismissal of the application for interim relief on 31 December 2019. It is admitted that no relief was obtained by the first respondent in the proceedings before the Bombay High Court, as well.

3 In the circumstances, we vacate the interim direction as noted above. The Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the company, Finolex Cables Limited is to take place on 29 September 2023. Any action which is taken on proposed resolution No 4 pertaining to the appointment of the Executive Chairperson shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal which is pending before the NCLAT.

4 Subject to the aforesaid modifications, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the aforesaid extent."

Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Sudhir Singh to be transferred to High Courts of Calcutta, Punjab and Haryana

The Supreme Court's Collegium recommended transfer of Justice Madhuresh Prasad from Patna High Court to Calcutta High Court. On 3 August 2023, the Collegium had proposed the transfer of Justice Prasad for better administration of justice. In terms of the Memorandum of Procedure, the Collegium consulted Judges of the Supreme Court who, being conversant with the affairs of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, are in a position to offer views on the proposed transfer. It also consulted the Chief Justices of the High Courts of Patna and Calcutta. 

By a letter dated 8 August 2023, Justice Prasad has conveyed his consent to the proposal for his transfer to the Calcutta High Court. He has, however, requested that while taking a final decision in the matter the Collegium may take into consideration the fact that final Board Examination of his younger son is due in February 2024. The Collegium considered the request but did not find any merit in the request. On 10 August 2023, the Collegium reiterated its recommendation dated 3 August 2023 to transfer him to the Calcutta High Court. Justice Prasad was a member of Patna High Court's four member Artificial Intelligence (AI) Committee, a Statutory Committee headed by Chief Justice constituted on 9 October 2023.  He was member of Court's e-Committee in matter of passing resolutions on all matters related with E-committee, a Statutory Committee,  a member of Court's Selection and Appointment Committee for the Sub-ordinate and Higher Judiciary, a Statutory Committee and a member of Court's Committee to scrutinize the service record
of Judicial Officers on their attaining the age of 50 years and 55 years as on 30.9.2018 for exercise of powers under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code. He was a member of Court's Litigation and Vetting Committee, Library Committee for High Court and Sub-Ordinate Court, a Statutory Committee and Committee to supervise and to formulate any suggestions relating to policy matters in the matter of preparation of the Budget of the High Court and the Sub-ordinate Judiciary.

The Collegium also recommended the transfer of Justice Sudhir Singh of Patna High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court for better administration of justice on 3 August 2023. The Collegium considered his representation dated 8 August 2023 wherein he requested that before taking a final decision regarding his transfer, the facts submitted by him in his letter may be considered. On 10 August 2023, the Collegium reiterated its recommendation for his transfer. He was a member of Court's Standing Committee (Statutory Committee, Infrastructural Development Committee to consider the infrastructural matters related with the High Court, residence of Judges and Judges Guest House, Committee to work out modalities for setting up of effective investigation wing under the direct control of High Court and to consider the matter regarding framing up of guidelines with regard to genuineness/correctness of allegation petition by the High Court against the Sub-ordinate Judiciary, Arrears Committee for District Courts, Medical Advisory Committee and Committee for sensitization of Family Court matters. 

Patna High Court Circular in compliance of Supreme Court's judgment in Md. Asfak Alam V. Jharkhand

The Registrar General, Patna High Court has issued a Circular Order dated September 19, 2023 in compliance of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 31 July, 2023 passed in Md. Asfak Alam V. The State of Jharkhand (2023) by the bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar.

All the courts under the territorial jurisdiction of the Court shall be required to follow the law laid down in case of Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar (2014) by the Supreme Court's bench of Justices Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Pinaki Chandra Ghose on 2 July, 2014.

 The following directions are contained in the said decision:
11.1 "All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr. P.C .;
11.2 All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41 (1)(b)(ii) ;
11.3 The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
11.4 The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the Police Officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;
11.5 The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.6 Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
11.7 Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High court having territorial jurisdiction.
11.8 Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.
12. We hasten to add that directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the cased in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a terms which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine."

The copy of the circular has been forwarded to the District and Sessions Judge , Araria; Aurangabad;
Banka; Begusarai; Bhagalpur; Bhojpur (Ara) ; Buxar; Darbhanga; East Champaran (Motihari ); Gaya; Gopalganj; Jamui; Jehanabad; Katihar; Kaimur (Bhabhua); Khagaria; Kishanganj; Lakhisarai; Madhepura; Madhubani; Munger; Muzaffarpur; Nalanda (Biharsharif); Nawada; Patna; Purnea; Rohtas (Sasaram); Saharsa; Samastipur; Saran (Chapra); Sheohar; Sheikhpura; Sitamarhi ; Siwan; Supaul ; Vaishali (Hajipur) and West Champaran (Bettiah) for information and necessary action.  

A copy of the circular has been forwarded to the Secretary General , Supreme court of India , New Delhi, Principal Secretary to Government of Bihar, Home Department, Patna, Principal Secretary to Government. f Bihar, Law Department, Patna, Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, I.G. (Prison) and Director, Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna, Director, Public Prosecution, Bihar, Patna, Director, Bihar Judicial Academy, Patna, Advocate General , Bihar, Patna, Member-Secretary, BSLSA, Patna, Secretary, Bar Association, Patna, Secretary, Advocate Association, Patna and Secretary, Lawyers' Association, Patna. The Chairman, Bar Council of Bihar, Patna has to forward this letter to all the Bar Associations of the State for information and necessary action.