1976 Supreme(SC) 33

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. BEG, P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
S. Abdul Karim, Appellant
Versus
M. K. Prakash and others, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 118, 195 and 196 of 1971
Decided on  30-1-1976.
Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 1971:
Criminal Appeals Nos. 195 and 196 of 1971:
Advocates appeared 
Mr. A. S. Nambiar, Advocate, for Appellant (In Cri. A. No. 118 of 1971); M/s. Kunhiraman Menon and A. S. Nambiar, Advocates, for Appellants In Cri. A. Nos. 195 and 196 of 1971.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 143,477,506 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 - Section 3 - Application - Owner which is managed for and on her behalf by her son, R-2. On March 28, 1969 R-1 presented a petition through R-2, to the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode alleging that the accused persons (P and his men) were likely to trespass into the to remove her timber. It was alleged that P had collected a large number of persons and equipped them with dangerous weapons, unlicensed guns, swords etc; that the sheds constructed by the petitioner and occupied by his workers and watchmen were being attacked and there was an apprehension that P and his men would demolish the sheds. The Superintendent of Police appears to have forwarded this petition to the Police Station Kayana where, on its basis, a case under Sections 143, 447 and 506, Penal Code was registered against P and others - Sub-Inspector incharge of the Police Station, went to the spot and took into possession the disputed timber comprising of 587 logs and entrusted the same on a kychet to two strangers - On April 22, 1969, R-1 made an application, Ex. P-3, before the Magistrate (R-3) praying that the seized logs be handed over to him. Thereafter, P also made an application to the Magistrate claiming the timber to be his property and prayed for delivery of its possession to him. The Magistrate thereupon issued notice to the Police who made a report. After hearing the Counsel of the rival claimants and perusing the police report (Ex. P-17) and other material, the Magistrate on April 28, 1969, passed an order, directing the Forest Range Officer to keep the logs in his 861 custody pending further investigation by the Police. Against this order, P filed Cr. Revision Petition No. 176 of 1969 in the High Court. No interim order directing the Magistrate to stay further proceedings or defer further action regarding the delivery of the disputed timber was issued by the High Court - A question whether there is contempt of court or not is a serious one - whether the act complained of was calculated to obstruct or had an intrinsic tendency to interfere with the course of justice and the due administration of law. - whether such an order was made by the High Court and had been shown to the Magistrate before he made the order for urgent delivery of the timber - whether the Magistrate deliberately did not follow this prudent course or whether the Magistrate deliberately did not follow this prudent course or whether he misdirected himself owing to an error of judgment. - Held, Court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. It behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inveterate practices in courts and tribunals. It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemner must be punished. It must be realised that our system of courts often results in delay of one kind or another. The remedy for it is reform and punishment departmentally - . The stark circumstances viz. - that the High Court had declined to issue any interim injunction or stay order in favour of P in the criminal revision 866 pending before it; that there was an observation in the High Court s order stressing the need for speedy removal of the cut timber and the possibility of its being damaged by the incoming rainy season; that he was labouring under the impression, though wrongly, that the order, dated April 28, 1969, was merely an interim order which had exhausted itself on the completion of the police investigation and the presentation of the Final Report by the police in which there was a positive finding that the timber belonged to R-1 and R-2 and they were entitled to its restoration - taken in their totality, go to show that in making the wrong order regarding delivery of the timber, the Magistrate was not actuated by any improper motive or deliberate design to thwart, impede, obstruct or interfere with the course of justice or to circumvent or defeat the proceedings in revision pending before the High Court - our opinion, the above reply given by the Magistrate was at least sufficient to dispel the suspicion that in making the order, dated September 26, 1969 in regard 865 to the delivery of the timber to R-1 he was actuated by a motive to impede or obstruct or defeat the course of justice. The notoriety of the case looming large in their minds, the learned Judges of the High Court without due consideration rather hastily rejected the explanation of the Magistrate that he had directed (vide his letter Ex. P-10), urgent delivery of the timber to R-1 because on seeing the copy of the High Court s order, dated May 2, 1969, which was shown to him, he was of the opinion that such a course was indicated therein. The point of substance was, whether such an order was made by the High Court and had been shown to the Magistrate before he made the order for urgent delivery of the timber. It was immaterial if certified copy of that order was shown to the Magistrate by R-1 or her Counsel or her agent - Ordered accordingly