Delhi HC filed criminal contempt case against Suo Moto against a man for brandishing a pistol during an inspection by a court-appointed local commissioner

The court appointed a lawyer as a local commissioner in an order prohibiting the defendant from disposing of industrial coal. The court asked the local commissioner to visit the defendant’s premises and find out the quantity of coal there.

The local commissioner’s inspection report revealed that the defendant’s son, Nitin Bansal, became aggressive when asked about the business. The report stated that Bansal took out a pistol and left it on his desk and that this was done to threaten the local commissioner.

Bansal’s testimony stated that the gun was not a real firearm, but a BB gun/toy gun that was used to scare away animals. It was stated that the pistol was lying on the table before the arrival of the local commissioner.

Single panel of judges Judge Subramonium Prasad noted that the report of the local commissioner indicated that Bansal took out a pistol and kept it on the table to threaten and coerce the local commissioner.

The court noted: “Even if we assume that the Defendant’s position is correct that the pistol in question was already present on the table, then, in the considered opinion of the Court, it was not necessary to keep the pistol on the table at the time the local commissioner visited the premises, because the presence of the weapon on the table itself in itself is enough to intimidate any person.”

Regarding Bansal’s position that the gun was just a toy gun designed to scare away animals, he stated that “This court does not understand how a toy gun without pellets can scare animals and monkeys. Therefore, Nitin Saxena’s position is not satisfactory to the Court at this stage.”

The court found that there was prima facie interference by Bansal in the course of justice. Thus, the court filed a suo moto contempt case against Bansal.

He asked the Registrar General to forward the records of the proceedings to the Chief Justice for referral of the case to the concerned division bench.

Case name: Bina and Ors. Ashok Bansal (OMP(I) (COMM.) 186/2024, IA 31372/2024)