State Of M. P. vs Revashankar - 1958 Supreme(SC) 116

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1958 Supreme(SC) 116

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
24th September, 1958.
S. JAFER IMAM, S.K. DAS AND J.L. KAPUR JJ.
State of M.P., Appellant
Versus
Revashankar, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1956.
Advocates Appeared
M/s. H. J. Umrigar and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, for Appellant; M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., for Respondent.

Advocates:
H.J.Umrigar, J.B.DADACHAN, R.H.Dhebar, S.N.ANDLEY

Headnote:
Contempt of Courts - Interpretation of S. 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 - S. 228, Indian Penal Code - [Contempt of Courts] - [Interpretation of S. 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952] - [S. 228, Indian Penal Code] - [S. 3(2) of the Act, S. 228, Indian Penal Code] - The court discussed the interpretation of S. 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 and its relationship with S. 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The court highlighted the essential ingredients of the offence under S. 228 and emphasized that if the act complained of is really 'scandalising the court' rather than a mere insult, then the jurisdiction of the High Court is not ousted by reason of the provision in S. 3(2) of the Act. The court held that the act complained of amounted to something more than a mere intentional personal insult to the Magistrate; it scandalised the court itself and impaired the administration of justice. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court was not ousted.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved an appeal regarding the interpretation of S. 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 and its relationship with S. 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent had filed an application and an affidavit containing serious aspersions against a Magistrate, leading to a question of whether the act amounted to an offence under S. 228, Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the act complained of scandalised the court itself and impaired the administration of justice, and therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court was not ousted by reason of the provision in S. 3(2) of the Act.
Issues: The key issue was whether the act complained of constituted an offence under S. 228, Indian Penal Code, and whether the jurisdiction of the High Court was ousted by reason of the provision in S. 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that if the act complained of is really 'scandalising the court' rather than a mere insult, then the jurisdiction of the High Court is not ousted by reason of the provision in S. 3(2) of the Act. The court also highlighted the essential ingredients of the offence under S. 228 and the need to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine the intention behind the act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the High Court dated February 9, 1955 was set aside. The court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the act complained of, and the case must now be decided by the High Court on merits in accordance with the law.

Judgement

S. K. DAS, J. : This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment an order of the then Madhya Bharat High Court, dated February 9, 1955, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 1954. Originally, the appeal was filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Bharat, now substituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appeal raises an important question with regard to the interpretation of S. 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (XXXII of 1952), hereinafter referred to as the Act, which repealed the earlier Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 (XII of 1926), as also the Indore Contempt of Courts Act (V of 1930), which was earlier in force in the State of Madhya Bharat.

2. The facts so far as they are relevant to this appeal are these. One Ganga Ram, stated to be the landlord of the respondent Revashankar, instituted a suit, which was numbered as 1383 of 1952 in the court of the Additional City Civil Judge, Indore, for ejectment and arrears of rent against Revashankar. It was stated that the suit was flied in the name of Ganga Ram and his wife Chandra Mukhi Bai. It was further alleged that one Mr. Uma Shankar Chaturvedi, a lawyer acting on behalf of Ganga Ram, advised the latter to sign the name of his wife Chandra Mukhi Bai though Chandra Mukhi Bai herself did not sign the plaint or the vakalatnama. In this suit Chandra Mukhi Bai filed an application for permission to prosecute her husband for forgery. Another application was flied by certain other persons said to be other tenants of Ganga Ram in which some allegations were made against Revashankar. On June 29, 1953, Revashankar filed a complaint against five persons for an alleged offence under S. 500, Indian Penal Code. This complaint was verified on July 13, 1953, and was registered as Criminal Case No. 637 of 1953 in the court of one Mr. N. K. Acharya, Additional District Magistrate, Indore. In that case one Mr. Kulkarni appeared on behalf of the complainant Revashankar. The accused persons appeared on August 8, 1953, through Messrs Mohan Singh and Uma Shankar Chaturvedi. An objection was raised on behalf of the accused persons to the appearance of Mr. Kulkarni as the latter s name appeared in the list of witnesses. This was followed by a spate of applications and counter-applications and on October 12, 1953, the learned Additional District Magistrate passed an order to the effect that the copies of the applications as well as of the affidavits filed by both parties should be sent to the District Judge for necessary action against the lawyers concerned. In the meantime a criminal case was started against Revashankar in the court of the Additional City Magistrate, Circle No. 2, for an alleged offence under S. 497, Indian Penal Code. The case was started on the complaint of Ganga Ram. That case was numbered as 644 of 1958. We then come to the crucial date, namely, December 17, 1958. On that date Revashankar filed an application in the court of the Additional District Magistrate who was in seizin of Criminal Case No. 637 of 1953. The application purported to be one under S. 528, Code of Criminal Procedure. This application contained some serious aspersions against the Magistrate, Mr. N. K. Acharya. The aspersions were summarised by the learned Judges of the High Court under the following four categories. The first aspersion was that from the order dated October 12, 1958 it appeared that Mr. N. K. Acharya wanted to favour Mr. Uma Shankar Chaturvedi. The second aspersion was that from certain opinions expressed by the Magistrate, Revashankar asserted that he was sure that he would not get impartial and legal justice from the Magistrate. The third aspersion was of a more serious character and it was that the Magistrate had a hand in a conspiracy hatched by Messrs. Mohan Singh and Uma Shankar Chaturvedi regarding certain ornaments of Chandra Mukhi Bai with the object of involving, Revashankar, and his brother Sushil Kumar in a false case of theft of ornaments. The fourth aspe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1958 Supreme(SC) 116

Cases Referred (2)