SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(SC) 13

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
13th January, 1961
S.J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
Saibal Kumar Gupta and others, Appellants
Versus
B. K. Sen and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 100 to 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; Mr. L. K. Jha, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. C. Datta Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1; Mr. K. B. Bagchi, Advocate for Mr. P. K. Bose, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2. (Appeal set down ex parte against the State of West Bengal).

Advocates:
B.DUTTA, D.N.MUKHERJI, G.S.PATHAK, K.B.BAGCHI, L.K.JHA, P.K.BOSH

The conduct of a person may amount to contempt of court if it is calculated to interfere with the course of justice.

Headnote:

CONTEMPT OF COURT - Interference with course of justice - Special Committee appointed by Corporation to enquire into allegations of malpractices by Corporation employees - Committee examining witnesses and issuing questionnaire to Commissioner of Corporation in respect of appointments made by him - Commissioner filing petition in High Court for contempt of court - High Court convicting Committee members for contempt - Appeal by Committee members - Held, Committee members guilty of contempt of court - Their conduct calculated to interfere with course of justice - Conviction and sentence upheld.

Fact of the Case:

The Calcutta Corporation appointed a Special Committee to inquire into allegations of malpractices by Corporation employees. The Committee examined witnesses and issued a questionnaire to the Commissioner of the Corporation in respect of appointments made by him. The Commissioner filed a petition in the High Court for contempt of court. The High Court convicted the Committee members for contempt.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the Committee members were guilty of contempt of court. Their conduct was calculated to interfere with the course of justice. The conviction and sentence were upheld.

Issues: Whether the Committee members were guilty of contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the Committee members were guilty of contempt of court because their conduct was calculated to interfere with the course of justice. The Committee was appointed to inquire into allegations of malpractices by Corporation employees. However, the Committee examined witnesses and issued a questionnaire to the Commissioner of the Corporation in respect of appointments made by him. This was beyond the scope of the Committee's authority. The Committee's actions were calculated to interfere with the course of justice because they could have influenced the outcome of the criminal proceedings pending against the Commissioner.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the Committee members were upheld.

Judgment

IMAM, J (on behalf of himself and Raghubar Dayal, J.) : The appellants were convicted for contempt of court and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 by the Calcutta High Court. They applied to the High Court for a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court which was granted. Hence the present appeal.

2. On March 19, 1955, one Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alipore, against the respondent B. K. Sen under S. 497 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate after examining numerous witnesses declined to frame a charge and discharged the accused under S. 253(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by his order dated July 13, 1957. Against the order of discharge Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury filed a revisional application before the Sessions Judge of 24 Paraganas, who by his order dated November 22, 1957, directed further enquiry. On January 3, 1958, the Magistrate while holding further enquiry, as directed, allowed the prosecution to tender further evidence. On February 3, 1958, the accused B. K. Sen filed a revision petition in the Calcutta High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge directing further enquiry as well as the order of the Magistrate permitting the prosecution to lead further evidence. The High Court thereupon issued a Rule and stayed further proceedings.

3. The respondent B. K. Sen held the office of Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation at the time he filed his petition in the Calcutta High Court for proceedings against the appellants for contempt of court. According to that petition, at a special meeting of the Calcutta Corporation held on January 16, 1958, the Mayor suggested the formation of a committee for discussion of necessary and appropriate steps to be taken with a view to eradicate alleged malpractices prevailing in different departments of the Corporation. At this meeting Satyananda Bhattacharjee made certain wild allegations against B. K. Sen. Two resolutions were passed at the meeting, one of which, authorised the Mayor to constitute a Special Committee to give effect to the suggestions and objectives indicated by the Mayor in his statement dated January 10, 1958. On February 14, 1958, at an ordinary meeting of the Calcutta Corporation the aforesaid Bhattacharjee repeated his allegations made at the previous meeting of January 16. At the meeting it was resolved that a Special Committee be set up and the appellants were elected at members of the committee. The Special Committee was to enquire into certain allegations made against certain officials of the Corporation who are said to have taken advantage of their office in carrying on business in their own names. The resolution was in the following terms :

"That a Special Committee consisting of Councillors Shri S. K. Gupta, Shri R. N. Majumdar and Shri S. K. Roy be set up to enquire into the allegations levelled against certain officials of the Corporation who are alleged to have been taking advantage of their high offices in carrying on business in their own names. The Committee will take up only those matters that relate to the Corporation."

4. The record of the contempt proceedings in the High Court shows that at a meeting of the Calcutta Corporation, on March 26, 1958, Bhattacharjee informed the Mayor that on February 14, 1958, he had mentioned on the floor of the House certain charges against some high officials of the Corporation and that the Mayor had asked him to submit his papers to the Special Committee. Bhattacharjee further informed the Mayor that the day before, at a sitting of the Special Committee, he wanted to hand over to the Special Committee some papers that were with him, but the Special Committee would not take them and had stated that they would enquire into "open case only". Bhattacharjee then asked the Mayor to request the Special Committee to enquire into all the allegations made by him. On this, the Mayor asked Bhattacharjee to hand ove





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top