State Bank of India vs Shri Avtar Singh

S.P. Goyal, J.—The Respondent secured a loan of Rs. 9,25,000/- from the Petitioner-bank against the security of his machinery and other raw materials. He removed the machinery by demolishing the boundary wall without the permission of the bank, sold it and misappropriated the sale consideration. Consequently, the bank got registered a criminal case against him on June 11, 1985, at Police Station, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The Respondent moved an application for anticipatory bail which was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. He then filed two petitions, Criminal Miscs. Nos. 3441-M and 3980 of 1985, in this Court. He was allowed anticipatory bail by Surinder Singh, J. on his giving an undertaking on July 22, 1985 that after the passing of the order, he shall dispose of some property owned by him and clear the debt of the bank within six months. He having failed to honour his undertaking, the Petitioner-bank moved this petition for taking proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

On notice having been issued, the Respondent contested the petition. He has denied that any undertaking, as alleged, was given by him. He has further pleaded that in the voluntary statement made by him, he only admitted his liability and offered to intimate the bank of any transfer of property made by him. The other facts noticed above, however, were admitted.

The defence set up is wholly incorrect and baseless. The undertaking given by the Respondent reads as under:-

I admit my liability to pay the due amount to the Respondent-bank I undertake that after the passing of the order in the present case, I shall dispose of soma property owned by me to clear the debt of the bank within six months from today. I also undertake that I shall inform the bank before actually executing the sale deed regarding the property to be sold by me and shall inform it about the date on which the said document is registered.

From a bare perusal of the above statement, it is apparent that the Respondent had given a clear undertaking that he would pay the amount due to the bank within six months. As it is not disputed that he has not made any payment to the bank, he has Failed to honour the undertaking and is, thus, held guilty or the contempt of this Court.

Normally, punishment of imprisonment is not awarded in case of a civil contempt, but in the present case the Respondent secured the anticipatory bail and avoided his arrest by giving the said, undertaking, The punishment of fine, therefore, would not be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. It may also be noticed that the Respondent, at the end of his affidavit, has tendered an unqualified apology, but that does not seem to be the result of real remorse and, instead, has been made only to avoid the consequences of his non fulfillment of the undertaking. If there was any sincerity in the apology of the Respondent, he would not have denied the giving of the under taking and, instead, would have pleaded circumstances showing the making of sincere efforts to honour the same.

I am, therefore, of the considered view that the Respondent secured the bail orders by giving an undertaking which he never intended to honour. So, the apology tendered is rejected and further being of the opinion that fine will not meet the ends of justice, sentence him to three months'' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to a further simple imprisonment of One month.