SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., A.N. GROVER, A.N. RAY, D.G. PALEKAR AND M.H. BEG, JJ.
Gobind Ram, Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1968, D/- 21-2-1972.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 204 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 228 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 - Section 3 - Appellant Made Certain Allegations - Filed A Criminal Complaint - Making Transfer Application - While dismissing transfer application of appellant in criminal complaint filed in court of Additional Sessions Judge recorded an order that a report be submitted to High Court for considering conduct of appellant and course adopted by him in making transfer application and in making imputations or aspersions against Judicial Officers and to take action for contempt of court hereinafter called Act - This was done after reproducing there paragraphs from transfer application and expressing an opinion that appellant had attempted to attack integrity and honesty of courts of judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge and to scandalize and to malign same - Held, In addition we may mention in which in a newspaper report Chief Justice of a High Court untruly alleged to have committed an ill-advised act in writing to his subordinate Judges asking them to collect subscriptions for War Fund - According to their Lordships there was no criticism of any judicial act of Chief Justice nor any imputation was made for anything done or omitted to be done by him in administration of justice nor was there any criticism of him in his administrative capacity - We cannot help observing that appellant did not show sense of responsibility in making allegations in question which is expected from an advocate and in further attempting to substantiate them which he failed to do - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
GROVER, J:- This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Bombay High Court finding the appellant, who is an Advocate, guilty of contempt of court and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for a term of four weeks and a fine of Rupees 1,000/- It was directed that in default of payment of the fine he would have to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four weeks. He was also ordered to pay the costs of the Assistant Government Pleader in the High Court and the Government Pleader before the Sessions Judge.
2. The material facts may be stated: In March 1966 a suit was filed against the appellant by D. N. Santani who is also an Advocate for recovery of Rs. 640/- in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan .The plaintiff in that suit had engaged H. I Jagiasi as his Advocate. In the written statement filed by the appellant he made certain allegations against Jagiasi and alleged inter alia that the latter was responsible for the suit, Jagiasi filed a criminal complaint for defamation in August 1966 against the appellant in the Court of Shri P. D. Sayyid, Judicial Magistrate at Kalyan. The appellant has set out number of incidents and matters in his petition for special leave to appeal which it is not necessary for our purpose to mention.It would suffice to say that on October 15, 1966 the appellant filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate saying that he intended to apply for transfer of the case to some other court. On October 28, 1966 he presented a transfer application in the court of the Sessions Judge. Thana. The transfer application was ultimately dismissed by the Assistant Judge and Additional Sessions Judge on March 8, 1967 before whom it came up for disposal. Meanwhile it apperas that the appellant applied for transfer of the civil suit which had been filed by D. N. Sentani to the court of the District Judge The suit was stayed and we have been informed that ultimately it was transferred sometime in the year 1967 from the court of Shri M. B. Baadkar from whose court transfer was sought. It has further been stated at the Bar and that statement has not been challeged that the civil suit was ultimately dismissed in August 1969.
3. While dismissing the transfer application of the appellant in the criminal complaint filed by Jagiasi in the court of Shri P. D. Sayyid the Additional Sessions Judge recorded an order that a report be submitted to the High Court for considering the conduct of the appellant and the course adopted by him in making the transfer application and in making imputations or aspersions against the Judicial Officers and to take action for contempt of court under S.3 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, hereinafter called the Act . This was done after reproducing there paragraphs from the transfer application and expressing an opinion that the appellant had attempted to attack the integrity and honesty of the courts of the judicial Magistrate and the Civil Judge and to scandalize and to malign the same. The High Court made an order on December 1, 1967. The following part of that order may be reproduced:
"He made an application to the Sessions Judge of transfer of the proceedings to another Court and the ground objected to by the learned Sessions Jude is as follows:
"The Magistrate below is on friendly relations with the complainant the respondent No. 1 in the present petition and he even enjoys the hospitality of the respondent No. 1 some times alone and some times in company of the Civil Judge J. D. Kalyan (Shri M.B. Baadkar) Who is also on friendly relations with the respondent No. 1 and who also enjoys the hospitality of the respondent No. 1".
The learned Sessions Judge had called for report from the Magistrate Mr. P. D. Sayyed and was apparently satisfied after consideration of all the affidavits produced before him that the allegation was baseless. He, therefore, referred the matter to this court for suitable action being taken against the respondent-A
followed : Perspective Publications P Ltd v. State of Maharashtra
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.