http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (crl.)  382 of 2001

PETITIONER: SMITA AMBALAL PATEL

RESPONDENT: ILA VIPIN PANDYA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/2008

BENCH: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, C.K. THAKKER & R.V. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O   R   D   E   R

CRIMINAL M.P. NO 794 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL M.P. NO. 5085 OF 2006  IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2001

K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI

(1)             The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court found  the petitioner guilty of contempt of court and sentenced her to  imprisonment for a period of three weeks.  Aggrieved by that order,  the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court. On March 26,  2001, this Court passed an order and held that the imprisonment  ordered by the High Court would remain suspended for a period of  five years and the petitioner herein was directed to give an  undertaking before the learned Single Judge (before whom the  contempt was committed by her)  in the form of an affidavit that  she will not commit any act of contempt of any court hereafter and    that if the said undertaking is violated the sentence of  imprisonment imposed on her will automatically revive and the  appellant will be liable to be put in prison for undergoing that part  of the sentence.  It was also indicated in that order that as to what  would be the situation after the period of five years will be decided  by the High Court on a motion made by the appellant-contemnor.

(2)             The petitioner sought modification of the order dated  March 26, 2001 by filing review petition.  The same was filed in  2006, long after the order passed in appeal filed by the petitioner.   The said petition for modification of this Court’s order dated  March 26, 2001 was dismissed on July 17, 2006.  Now, the  petitioner seeks clarification or modification of order passed by  this Court on July 17, 2006 and also to set aside the show-cause  Notice for Contempt issued by the learned Single Judge on August  25, 2000.            (3)             The petitioner herself argued the matter.  We find no  reason to grant the prayers sought for by the petitioner.  However,  we make it clear that the undertaking given by her before the  learned Single Judge as directed by this Court for suspending the  custodial sentence has now exhausted itself as five years have  elapsed and no further direction is required in this matter.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

(4)             The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of  accordingly.