Judgement

KHANNA, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave by Sammbhu Nath Jha who along with two others has been found by the Patna High Court to be guilty of contempt of court. In view of the fact that the contempt, in the opinion of the High Court, was of a technical nature. The contemners were let off with a warning.

2. On January 2, 1966 a report was lodged with the police by Lachho Paswan that when he and his brother Dwarka Paswan were going to Jamui market, Kedar Prasad respondent abused them. Kedar Prasad also exhorted other to assault Dwarka Paswan. An assault was then made upon Dwarka Paswan and he was surrounded. Arjun Pandey thrust Saif in the chest of Dwarka Paswan, as a result of which he died on the spot. The motive for the assault was stated to be that Laccho Paswan and Dwarka Paswan had voted against Kedar Prasad in election to the office of Mukhia. The police on the basis of that report investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet for offence under sections 148 and 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. against a number of persons. No charge sheet was submitted against Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey. During the course of commitment proceedings, the committing magistrate ordered that Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey be summoned for May 15, 1966 as accused.

3. Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey filed revision petitions against the order of the committing magistrate, but the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr as per order dated May 5, 1967. It was held that Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey had been rightly summoned.

4. After the dismissal of the revision petition, an application was filed by the Assistant District Prosecutor on September 18, 1967 in the court of the learned magistrate for withdrawal of the case against Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey on the ground that it was inexpedient for State and public policy to prosecute them. After hearing the counsel for the complainant and others, the committing magistrate dismissed the said application on October 6, 1967. It was observed that the application for withdrawal of the prosecution amounted to an abuse and improper interference in the normal course of justice.

5. Two revision petitions were filed against the above order dated October 6, 1967. One of the revision petitions was filed by the State of Bihar and the other was filed by one Abani Kumar Mandal. Both the revision petitions were admitted by the High Court on November 30,1967.

6. During the pendency of the above mentioned criminal revision petitions, the Governor of Bihar as per notification dated March 12, 1968 appointed a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Shri T. L. Venkatarama Aiyer, retired judge of the SC, under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Act 60 of 1952) to inquire into a number of charges against 14 persons who had earlier held the offices of Chief Minister and ministers in the State of Bihar. One of the persons against whom inquiry was orderd was Shri Hasibur Rahman who had held the office of Minister during the period from March 16,1967 to January 28, 1968. The allegations which were the subject matter of the inquiry were set forth in the schedule annexed to the notification. Allegation No. J-4 which was the subject of inquiry against Shri Hasibur Rahman was as under:

"Shri Kedar Prasad Sinha and Shri Arjun Pandey were facing prosecution along with nine others in a serious case of rioting with murder which was pending before the Munsif-Magistrate, Jamui. They filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr against their prosecution, which was dismissed. Thereupon on 6th June, 1967 they presented an application direct to the then Minister for Law, Shri Hasibur Rahman who directed that the Law Secretary should examine the matter and report and in meanwhile the District Magistrate was requested to take two months adjournment of the case and also send the case diary with his report.

On 17th August, 1967 the District Magistrate sent his report op