Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1964 Supreme(SC) 88

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
16th March, 1964
A.K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Hari Das and another, Appellants
Versus
State of W.B. and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, Senior Advocate, (Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Advocate with him), for Appellants; Mr. Niharendu Dutt Majumdar, Senior Advocate, (M/s. P. K. Chakrabarty and P. K. Bose, Advocates, with him), for Respondents (No. 1); Mr. S. C. Majumdar, Advocate, for Respondents (Nos. 2 to 4).

Advocates:
NIHARENDU D.MAJUMDAR, P.K.BOSH, P.K.CHAKRAVARTI, P.K.CHATTERJI, S.C.MAJUMDER, SARJU PRASAD

A false charge of contempt of court is an offence under S. 211 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Offence under S. 211, Indian Penal Code - Institution of criminal proceeding - False charge - Meaning of - Whether a false charge can be made in respect of an offence which could be tried by a proceeding which was not a criminal proceeding.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants had moved the High Court for committal for contempt of court of certain respondents, whom I will call the Mondal respondents, for breach of an injunction issued in a suit. That injunction prohibited the respondents from disturbing the appellants' possession of some property. It was said by the appellants that the Mondal respondents attempted to enter forcibly into the properties in breach of the injunction and "in the course of such attempt broke open the gate, cut down one tree and also broke down the gate". The High Court referred the matter to the Subordinate Judge for a report on the allegations about breach of injunction and on a consideration of that report came to the conclusion that the appellants "could not reasonably be believed" and expressed its agreement with the Subordinate Judge's view that "the allegations made by the petitioners are not true". The petitioners referred to are the appellants. The petition for committal for contempt of court was thereupon dismissed. There after the Mondal respondent moved the High Court and obtained the order directing a complaint to be lodged as earlier mentioned. Their case was that deliberate false statements had been made in affidavits used by the appellants in connection with their application for the committal of the Mondal respondents for contempt of court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that "the allegations .........are not true". It is unnecessary to pursue this question further for Mr. Sarjoo Prasad's contention is obviously unsustainable.
Issues: Whether a false charge can be made in respect of an offence which could be tried by a proceeding which was not a criminal proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The word "offence" in S. 211 means an offence punishable under the Code or under any special or local law as defined in it. Section 41 defines a special law as a law applicable to a particular subject. Now the Contempt of Courts Act is an Act dealing with the subject of contempt of courts and is, therefore, a special law. It also provides for punishment for contempt of court by simple imprisonment up to six months, subject to certain conditions mentioned : See Ss. 3 and 4. A charge of having committed a contempt of court is, therefore, a charge of having committed an offence within the meaning of S. 211. Such a charge was admittedly brought in this case and that charge was furthermore preferred to the only person who could act upon it, namely, the High Court, for without its sanction no complaint for lodging a false charge of contempt of court could have been made.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.

Judgement

SARKAR, J. : The High Court at Calcutta made an order directing the Registrar of the Court to file a complaint in the Court of a magistrate against the appellants under Ss. 211, 199 and other appropriate sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Registrar thereupon filed a complaint against the appellants under Ss. 193, 199 and 211 of the Code. The appellants have appealed against the order of the High Court under a certificate granted under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

2. It appears that the appellants had moved the High Court for committal for contempt of court of certain respondents, whom I will call the Mondal respondents, for breach of an injunction issued in a suit. That injunction prohibited the respondents from disturbing the appellants possession of some property. It was said by the appellants that the Mondal respondents attempted to enter forcibly into the properties in breach of the injunction and "in the course of such attempt broke open the gate, cut down one tree and also broke down the gate" The High Court referred the matter to the Subordinate Judge for a report on the allegations about breach of injunction and on a consideration of that report came to the conclusion that the appellants "could not reasonably be believed" and expressed its agreement with the Subordinate Judge s view that "the allegations made by the petitioners are not true". The petitioners referred to are the appellants. The petition for committal for contempt of court was thereupon dismissed. There after the Mondal respondent moved the High Court and obtained the order directing a complaint to be lodged as earlier mentioned. Their case was that deliberate false statements had been made in affidavits used by the appellants in connection with their application for the committal of the Mondal respondents for contempt of court.

3. Mr. Sarjoo Prasad appearing for the appellants has first said that the order in so far as it directed a complaint under Ss. 193 and 199 of the Code could not be supported as there was no definite finding in the order dismissing the application for contempt of court that any false statement had been made. I have earlier set out the relevant parts of that order and I think that it contains such a finding. The High Court held that "the allegations .........are not true". It is unnecessary to pursue this question further for Mr. Sarjoo Prasad s contention is obviously unsustainable.

4. Another point made by Mr. Sarjoo Prasad was that there was no case for lodging a complaint under S. 211 of the Code. He said that in order that an offence under that section might be committed by a person, he must either have instituted a criminal proceeding or caused such proceeding to be instituted or he must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence. It was said that the appellants could not be said to have done any of these things. His contention was that what they had done was to start a proceeding for committal for contempt of court and such proceeding was not a criminal proceeding.

5. I will assume that a proceeding for committal for contempt of court is not a criminal proceeding within the meaning of that expression as used in S. 211. On this basis, no doubt, it cannot be said that the appellants had instituted or caused to be instituted any criminal proceeding. But the section also says that falsely charging a person with the commission of an offence would be an offence under it and it seems to me that the appellants did so charge the Mondal respondents. Mr. Sarjooo Prasad s answer was that the charge contemplated by the section had to be a charge which would give rise to a criminal proceeding. I am unable to agree.

6. Mr. Sarjoo Prasad based his contention on three cases, none of which , in my opinion, supports him. The first case was of Empress v. Jamoona, ILR 6 Cal 620. There it was held that the charge had to be made to a person competent to Act upon it, a person having power to investigate and se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document