IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 19 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, against the order dated: 16.02.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Suo Motu CC No. 1905 of 2016. Between: In Re... Sri M. Giridhar Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District. ...Appellant/Respondent in CC/Contemnor I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017rAPPL. NO: 509 OF 2Q^7\ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order in Suo Motu CC.NO.1905 of 2016, Dated 16-02-2017, pending disposal of the above Contempt Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant/Respondent in CC/Contemnor: SMT A JAYANTHI, Government Pleader for Home. The Court made the following: JUDGMENT r 0 APHC010326092017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3488] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 19/2017 r Between: In Re.. ...APPLICANT AND M Giridhar Rao Chittoor Dist ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Applicant: 1.GP FOR HOME(AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1.A JAYANTHI The Court made the following Judgment: (perHon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) One Voleti Sitharama Raju had filed Criminal Petition No.7839 of 2016 to quash the criminal proceedings filed against him in Crime No.3 of 2016 before the Women Police Station, Chittoor. 2. On 09.06.2016, the erstwhile High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh had directed the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation without arresting the 2 petitioner therein for a period of one month. This order was extended for a further period of one month on 13.07.2016. However, the petitioner therein was arrested on 13.07.2016. Aggrieved by the said arrest, the petitioner therein moved W.P.No.26715 of 2016, seeking a declaration that the said arrest was illegal and for the quashing the criminal proceedings in Crime No.3 of 2016. 3. During the course of hearing of the above-said writ petition, on 4. 26.08.2016, the learned Single Judge hearing the matter was of the opinion that the arrest of the petitioner therein, on 13.07.2016, was in violation of the orders passed on the said date. On the ground that the order was passed by the learned Single Judge in the presence of the Public Prosecutor, it would be deemed that the appellant herein, who had arrested the petitioner therein, had knowledge of the passing of the said order. The learned Single Judge has Suo Motu initiated the Contempt Case Nos.1694 as well as 1905 of 2016. It appears that a further order dated 15.09.2016 was passed in 5. W.A.No.847 of 2016, wherein a show cause notice was initiated against the appellant herein under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the willful disobedience of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.07.2016. It appears that both Contempt Cases were taken up together, and the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 16.02.2017, had held that the arrest of Sri Voleti Sitharama Raju, the petitioner therein, by the appellant 6. r. 3 r herein was in violation of the directions of the Court, dated 13.07.2016, and the appellant herein was sentenced to a fine of Rs.1500/- in C.C.No.1905 of 2016. It appears that C.C.No.1694 of 2016 was closed with no orders, in 7. view of the orders passed in C.C.No.1905 of 2016. 8. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.02.2017, the appellant herein has moved the present appeal. 9. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein would contend that the arrest of the petitioner therein, was done on 13.07.2016 itself, and the appellant herein had no knowledge of the extension of the earlier interim order, as the said extension was granted on 13.07.2016. She would contend that, while the learned Single Judge // held that an order passed in the presence of the Advocate would amount to notice of the order to the client also, the learned Single Judge should have taken into account the question, whether there was any willful violation of the order of the Court. She would further contend that, though there is a deemed violation of the order of the Court, there is no willful violation. This Court would accept the said contention. It appears that, expect 10. for the legal fiction of the knowledge of the order, there is no material to show that the appellant herein was aware of the extension of the earlier interim order on 13.07.2016. 4 11. In such circumstances, the conduct of the appellant herein could not constitute a willful violation of the order of the Court, which is the basic requirement for convicting a person under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 12. Accordingly, this Contempt Appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.02.2017 in Contempt Case No. 1905 of 2016. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Registrar(Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 2. M. Giridhar Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. Two CCs to Government Pleader for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 4. One CC to Smt. A Jayanthi Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies 1. The Stu vna A HIGH COURT DATED:04/02/2025 JUDGMENT CA.No.19 of 2017 01 mar 2025 ^ Current Section . ^ ^*S^PATCHe ALLOWING THE CONTEMPT APPEAL