Why Delhi HC rejected ‘toy gun’ defence by man in contempt case, sent him to jail

The bench held the man guilty, observing his conduct “clearly constitutes criminal contempt”.

“Accordingly, in terms of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Contemnor is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month along with Rs 2,000 as fine,” it held.

The section provides that a person found guilty of contempt of court may be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to six months, a fine of up to ₹2,000, or both. However, the section also states that the accused may be discharged, or the punishment remitted, if he or she tenders an apology to the satisfaction of the Court, provided that such apology is made bona fide.

To arrive at its conclusion, The court examined the statement of the police official concerned.

“The same was examined by the Court and was found to be a real gun and not a toy gun, as was being canvassed by the Contemnor,” the court said.

The matter pertained to dealings in industrial coal by the man’s father. A single judge had restrained the father from dealing in 30,000 tonne of industrial coal.

However, there was a plea filed in court alleging that the father was disposing of the industrial coal and alienating his assets following which a court commissioner was appointed to ascertain true facts.

The court, on October 29, labeled the plea of the man as “dishonest and contumacious” and held that his claim that the weapon was merely a toy gun was “false and misleading.”

The bench said any apology should be “meaningful, genuine and bona fide” for getting ” accepted” by the court.

Key findings

• The court found the seized gun as a real air gun and not a toy.
• Man’s plea was “false, misleading” and was taken with the hope that the Court would never call for the “physical gun” itself.
• A clear “interference in the course of judicial proceedings” was observed by the court in this matter.
• The local commissioner’s report mentioned that the contemnor was extremely rude and uncooperative during the court ordered inspection.

Background

A court-appointed commissioner went for inspection at the business premises of Nitin Bansal. The commissioner, however, claimed his behaviour was “rude, non-cooperative, and aggressive”.

It was alleged that he took out his “pistol”, which he claimed to be a toy gun, on the table during the inspection.

The man argued that the object allegedly used for threatening the local commissioner was just a “toy gun” which is used to “scare away stray animals”.

He said he was “completely innocent” and a “ law-abiding citizen” with no criminal history, and did not engage in “reckless conduct.”

The advocate appearing for the court tendered an unconditional apology on his behalf.

However, the court found that the man showed “no remorse” and it will not be “appropriate to accept” the unconditional apology.

The man has recently submitted that there is a wedding in his family and prayed to allow him to surrender on November 6 before the jail superintendent concerned.

The court directed the voluntary surrender of the man.