Legal Notice - To Advocate General of Maharashtra Mr. Sunil Manohar - For Contempt of SC & HC + Fraud on Court December 15, 2014 at 10:03am LEGAL NOTICE To: ShriSunil Manohar AdvocateGeneral of Maharashtra. From:Mohini Naraindas Kamawani Address – 101, Mauli,1st Floor, A-Wing, Plot No. 29-C, Sector 4, Vashi, Navi Mumbai400703 Maharashtra, INDIA MOB - 9920412577 –RES. TEL - 022-27823443 EMAIL - mohini.kamwani@gmail SUBJECT: Contempt of Hon. SupremeCourt’s Law and presenting Concealed Truth before Hon. Bombay High Court andalso showing “Falling Standards of Professional Ethics” as per the law laiddown by Hon. Supreme Court in 2004 ALL MR (Cri.) 3421 (SC) + Fraud on Court I, the undersigned, Mohini Kamawani, 80years old, widow of freedom fighter , do hereby serve upon you this notice as under: 1. ThatI filed Criminal Writ Petition no. 4188of 2014 in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court which was argued and decidedon 5th December, 2014. Thematter was heard by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Justice A.S. Oka andShri Justice A.S. Gadkari, in which yourepresented Respondent No.3 i.e.Registrar General of Bombay High Court and while appearing on behalf ofRespondent No.3 and arguing the case, you had committed the followingillegalities , contempt of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as Hon’ble High Courtand also committed various offences under various sections of the I.P.C. whichare mentioned as under: 2. Thatas you being Advocate General, you are supposed to represent, work for and onbehalf of State and not for Registrar General of High Court which is anindependent body. However, without any authority and valid reasons you appearedon behalf of Respondent no.3 i.e. Registrar General of High Court for which Irequire reasons from you and it is also a matter of serious consideration. 3. Moreover,as per the Law, Maharashtra State is supposed to Safeguard and Protect theLife, Liberty and Human Rights of its Citizens, that is me and also more sounder the Senior Citizens Protection Act; as I am an 80 year old VERY SeniorCitizen of Maharashtra and you being the Advocate General of Maharashtra Stateit was your PRIME Duty to Protect my Human Rights as you were AWARE that I wasArrested and Jailed Illegally in a False Case. I have ATTACHED – “Duties of Advocate General” from MaharashtraGovt. website, for your information. 4. Thatwhile opposing my petition, you had given wrongful submission and you misledthe court that in the Judgment in the case of Subramanyam Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh it is not laid downthat there is sanction by deemed fiction. You falsely submitted that the saiddecision was being dealt with provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act andnot under provisions of IPC. Your abovesaid submission is dishonest concealmentof the law laid down by the Supreme Court regarding Deemed Sanction. It was within your knowledge and once again isbeing brought to your notice that in view of law settled by the Allahabad High Court in Case No. - 767 of 2013 ShashikantPrasad vs. The State Thru C.B.I.,/ A.C.B., Lucknow andupheld by the Apex Court whereconcept of Deemed Sanction andguidelines given by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in Subramanyam Swamy and Vinit Narayan case is applicable to allcases under Cr. P.C. and IPC. JudgmentATTACHED. Head note is as follows :- HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Case No. -767 of 2013 Date ; 29/07/2013 Applicant:- Shashikant Prasad Opposite Party :- The State Thru C.B.I., / A.C.B., Lucknow =========================================================== INDEX NOTE : DEEMEDSANCTION- Sections 120B, 420, 468 and471 I.P.C. And 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act - Whether trial Court is competent to proceed with the case onthe basis of deemed sanction to prosecute the accused,if prosecution sanctionedis not accorded by competent authority/State within the period of four monthsin terms of the direction issued by Apex Court in Vineet Narain’s case - Noorder passed in regard to prosecution sanction so far as the petitioner isconcerned. The Government has not taken any decision in regard to prosecutionsanction so far as petitioner is concerned in spite of aforesaid letter. Onaccount of inaction on the part of State Government, CBI submitted charge-sheetin the Court of Special Judge against the petitioner and other co-accused underSections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. And 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) ofP.C. Act- The period fixed in Vineet Narains case had already expired, but thegovernment has not taken any decision. Hence in this case the court deemed thatsanction has been accorded on account of default of State Government to takedecision in the matter and issued process against accused including thepetitioner to appear before court Aggrieved by the aforesaid order thispetition has been filed- Held, According to counsel for petitioner the remedywould be of initiating proceeding of contempt and not to take it as deemedsanction to prosecute - judgement of Division Bench of this Court delivered inWrit Petition No. 10503 (M/B) of 2009 (Vishwanath Chaturvedi Vs. Union ofIndia), wherein the Division of this court keeping in view the direction issuedin Vineet Narains case (Supra) fixing time limit to accord sanction has heldthat in default of taking decision to accord sanction within the time fixed,the sanction shall be deemed to have been granted.-Paragraph 151 of the said judgment isreproduced herein below: In view of above, we allow the writ petition subject to observation madeand finding recorded hereinabove and issue the following directions forcompliance not only in the interest of present controversy but to safeguard thefuture public interest till Act is appropriately amended (supra) by theParliament- A message must be given by the investigating agencies keeping inview the concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution that, Be youever so high, the law is above you. Law must take its course to punishthe guilty- unless the amendment is made by the parliament in the light ofVineet Narains case (Supra) the concept of deemed sanction shall be there.The order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in theaforesaid writ petition was assailed by the State before Apex Court by filing aSpecial Leave Petition (c) No.11563 of 2011. The Apex Court while entertainingthe appeal vide its order dated 18.4.2011 has passed the following interimorder:- ..... Ad-inteirm stay of the direction No. (iii) in para 155 and thesecond part of directions no. (viii) in para 155 requiring the reports to besubmitted to the High court in read to every investigation at interval of twomonths. In regard to directions no. (iv) in para 155 of the impugned order, theperiod three months mentioned therein shall be substituted by the period sixmonths ..... - Perusalof it shows that the Apex court has not stayed the operation of direction (iv)given in para 155 but simply extent period from three months to six monthswhich shows that concept of deemed sanction has been accepted by the Apex court. In Dr. Subramanian Swamys case (supra). The Apex court again reminded tothe Parliament to do its job. The guide line no. 3 of para 56 deals with conceptof deemed sanction. - As suchif Investigating Officer asked for grant of sanction from the government, afterexpiry of time limit fixed as above, the prosecuting agency or complainant mayask the trial court to proceed in the matter on the basis of deemed sanction. ====================================================== Counsel for Applicant :- Nandit Srivastava,Tapeshwar Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bireshwar Nath Coram: Honble Vishnu ChandraGupta,J 5. Itmakes me to remind you that the Hon’bleSupreme Court in 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3421 (SC) was also laid down that,withholding case laws which are against your client and which support theopposite party is Falling StandardsOf Professional Ethics and you committed this misconduct. 6. Asper law laid down by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Shivankar vs. Hukumchand 1999 SCC 467, it has been ruled that it is the dutyof the Public Prosecutor to act fairly and not merely to support the State by Fraud.If the opposite party is entitled to any legitimate benefits, even then it isyour duty to make it available to him or inform the Court even if the oppositeparty overlooked it. In 1987 (3) SCC258 , relying on various authorities Apex Court, ruled that an advocatehas to act fairly and place on record truth against his client and should notwithhold authority or any case law. Hence you are guilty of contempt of courtby placing misleading version and concealing the legal position. 7. Needlessto remind you that the case laws are legal evidence and placing reliance on thelaw in a fashion to create circumstance to exist, which in fact does not exist,is clearly an offence under section 191,193, 201, 218, 166, etc. of I.P.C. 8. Moreover,your another submission as has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court inpara 12 of the judgment dated 5th December,2014 that K. Veeraswamy vs. Union of India para60 regarding protection to the High Court Judges, is also reflecting yourmalafide intention to mislead the court and to pollute the fountain of justicebecause in the same case law of K.Veeraswamy’s case 1991 (3) SCC 655in para 56, it is clearly laid down by the Constitution Bench that there is noprotection to the High Court Judges, onlyin the case of Prevention of Corruption Act , sanction is required. 9. Moreover,this position is clarified by the Hon’bleJustice Dr. B. S. Chavan in the case of Ramlal vs. State 2001 (Cri.L.J.) 800and ruled that guidelines of K.Veeraswamy’s case regarding prior permission and consultation with ChiefJustice before registering FIR against High Court Judge is only regarding thecase of Prevention of Corruption Act and in all other cases falling under IPC,no such prior permission is necessary. This case law was given to you with thePurshish No.1 and 2 and that you neither relied on it nor given any counterversion to this case law but conveniently and deliberately ignored it withulterior motive to save accused and to get favourable order from the Court forwhich you are not entitled to. 10. That as per law laid down by Hon.Supreme Court in the case of Union ofIndia vs. Ramesh (2012)1 SCC 476 laid down that judgment obtained bynon-disclosure of all necessary facts tantamount to a judgment obtained byFraud. And you are Guilty of playing Fraud on Court. Judgment ATTACHED. 11. That you also relied on the case lawof (1) 2006 (5) M.H.L.J. 639 (2)relied on the section 3(1) of the Protection of Judges Act, 1985, but youconveniently ignored the case law in 2003(1)B.Cr.C page 727 where it is made clear that if High Court feels to prosecute a judge, then section 3(2) empowersthe High Court and it has override over section 3(1). In argument this caselaw was given by me along with Purshish to you and the Hon’ble High Court, butyou with some malafide intention ignored this settled position of law and henceyou are guilty of contempt of High Court. 12. Asper my knowledge you are a son of well known lawyer Shri V.R. Manohar who had given assistance to the Hon’ble Courtin doing justice and has been informing various landmark judgments which arehelpful to many citizens , lawyers and courts, and I never expect such cheapconduct from you !!! 13. That, as per the law laid down and reiteratedby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.S. Ahlavat’scase, “to perpetuate a mistake is no virtue but to correct it is compulsionof sound judicial conscience”. Therefore, you are expected to file aReview Petition before the Hon’ble High Court at your own and try to correctthe grave mistake committed by you and thereby to purge the contempt, if you sodesire. 14. Hence by way of this notice, you are herebycalled upon to tender written apology to the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble SupremeCourt within 3 days from receipt of this notice, failing which I will becompelled to initiate appropriate action under the provisions of I.P.C. andContempt of Courts Act against you in the Court of Law. Take serious note thattendering of your apology and acceptance or non acceptance by the Hon’ble HighCourt is altogether different matter. But this notice is issued to you byreserving my right to initiate criminal proceedings and other proceedingsfalling under the law so that other victims, citizens and next generation willat least be assured that such mistake will not be done by mischievous personlike you. 15. On other grounds also, I am filing my ReviewPetition against the impugned order dated 5-12-2014 in my Crim. WP 4188/2014. (Mohini Kamwani) Encl: 1. Duty of Advocate General ofMaharashtra 2.Allahabad Court Judgment on DEEMED SANCTION 3.SC JUDGMENT ON – Fraud on Court CC: 1. Shri V R Manohar 2. Hon. SC Justice Shri Sharad A Bobde ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGHCOURT DATED 5-12-2014 IN MY CRIM. WP NO.4188 OF 2014 For…ORDEROF BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 5-12-2014 IN MOHINI KAMWANI’S CRIM. WP NO. 4188 OF2014…Please Click on this LINK or Visit Mohini Kamwani Timeline on Facebook►►►https://dropbox/s/r8g1tnzi0b8kd00/J-Oka%20Order%20-%204188.pdf?dl=0https://dropbox/s/r8g1tnzi0b8kd00/J-Oka%20Order%20-%204188.pdf?dl=0
Posted on: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 04:39:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015