Observing that Maharashtra state minister Nawab Malik was already behind bars (in a money laundering case), the Bombay High Court remarked on Monday that it would not make sense to punish the state minister now in the contempt plea.
The remark was made by a division bench of justices S J Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav while hearing a contempt plea filed by Dnyandev Wankhede, father of IRS officer and former NCB zonal director Sameer Wankhede.
Dnyandev had filed plea in HC seeking contempt action against Malik for wilfully breaching undertaking given to court in December 2021 that he would not make defamatory statements against Wankhedes.
The HC had earlier issued show cause notice to Malik asking him as to why contempt action should not be initiated against him.
During the hearing on Monday, justice Kathawalla said: “He (Malik) is anyways behind bars. If we punish him today (for contempt of court) and sentence him then would it make any sense?”
Malik's advocate Feroze Bharucha requested the court to first hear them before passing any order.
Senior counsel Birendra Saraf, appearing for Dnyandev, said the court could adjourn hearing in the plea.
After the court was informed that Malik was in Enforcement Directorate’s custody till March 3, the HC kept Wankhede’s plea for hearing on March 7.
In his affidavit, while specifically denying that he has breached his undertaking to the HC, Malik had alleged that Dnyandev’s had made false additions in the transcript submitted to the court in his contempt plea.
Malik had alleged that there were “false insertions/additions” to the transcripts cited by Dnyandev, wherein words “Wankhede” and “Sameer Wankhede” were added at different places to make it look as if Malik had mentioned those words in the press conference. Malik has cited seven instances where these words have been inserted and sought dismissal of Dnyandev’s contempt plea.
Dnyandev denied the allegations in his additional affidavit. In Marathi and English translation of the interview, the translator “mistakenly/erroneously inserted ‘Mr Sameer Wankhede’ and ‘Wankhede’ in the translation, where a reference was made to ‘him’ (without naming him), as was obvious from the preceding part of the statement, where he was named, added Dnyandev’s affidavit.
“Errors/ inaccuracies in the translation are an unintentional mistake made bona fide by the translator… they materially do not alter the contemptuous nature of the statements” made by Malik, it added.
