The Court had appointed a lawyer as Local Commissioner in an order in which he had restrained the defendant from disposing of industrial coal. The Court had asked the Local Commissioner to visit the defendant’s premises and determine the amount 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 kept it on the office table and that he did so to threaten the Local Commissioner.

Bansal’s affidavit stated that the gun was not a real firearm, but rather a BB or toy gun kept to scare animals. It was claimed that the gun was lying on the table before the local commissioner arrived.

A single court of Judge Subramonium Prasad He noted that the Local Commissioner’s report indicates that Bansal took out the pistol and kept it on the table to threaten and coerce the Local Commissioner.

The Court commented, “Even assuming that the defendant’s position is correct that the pistol in question was already present on the table, then in the considered opinion of this Court, it was not necessary for the pistol to be on the table at the time when The Local Commissioner was visiting the premises because having a weapon on the table is enough to intimidate anyone.”

Regarding the position taken by Bansal that the gun was just a toy weapon used to scare animals, he stated “This Court does not understand how a toy gun without pellets can scare animals and monkeys. Therefore, the stand taken by Nitin Saxena does not satisfy this Court at this juncture.”

The Court found that there was prima facie interference in the administration of justice by Bansal. Therefore, the Court initiated a suo moto criminal contempt case against Bansal.

He asked the Registrar General to hand over the minutes of the proceedings to the Chief Justice for referral of the matter to the concerned Division Bench.

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