The same was filed in 2006, long after the order passed in appeal filed by the petitioner.
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.
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.
Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court.
The said petition for modification of this Courts order dated March 26, 2001 was dismissed on July 17, 2006.
O R D E R CRIMINAL M.P. NO 794 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL M.P. NO.
The petitioner sought modification of the order dated March 26, 2001 by filing review petition.
5085 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
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 companytempt was companymitted by her in the form of an affidavit that she will number companymit any act of companytempt of any companyrt 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.
382 OF 2001 G. Balakrishnan, CJI The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court found the petitioner guilty of companytempt of companyrt and sentenced her to imprisonment for a period of three weeks.
