Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.SUBBA RAO, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
D.Jones Shield - Appellant
Versus
N.Ramesam - Respondent
Decided On : 01-28-55
CONTEMPT OF COURT - ACT 32 OF 1952 - S. 3, 4 - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS - INTERFERENCE - CONTEMPT - PUBLIC OFFICER - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - PARALLEL ENQUIRY - JURISDICTION - HIGH COURT - CONTEMPT OF SUBORDINATE COURTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Jamedar and clerk in the Revenue offices, filed a complaint for breach of trust of court properties against a Sub Magistrate and others before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Guntur. The complaint was transferred to the Additional First Class Magistrate, Narasaraopet, who dismissed it under S. 203, Criminal P. C. The petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision against the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate to the Sessions Judge, Guntur. During the pendency of the revision, the District Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur, the Personal Assistant to the District Collector and Additional District Magistrate, and the acting Public Prosecutor, Guntur, allegedly did some acts interfering with the course of justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Collector did not conduct any parallel inquiry during the crucial period and that the report sent by him to the Revenue Board on the application filed by a third party was not related to the criminal complaint against the Sub Magistrate. The court also found that the Public Prosecutor did not ask the Sessions Judge to represent the facts of the departmental enquiry to the court, and that the Public Prosecutor only replied to a question of the Sessions Judge, which he should do under the circumstances.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Collector conducted a parallel enquiry during the pendency of the criminal revision petition, amounting to contempt of court? 2. Whether the Public Prosecutor asked the Sessions Judge to represent the facts of the departmental enquiry to the court, amounting to contempt of court? 3. Whether the Public Prosecutor's statement in court in response to a question from the Sessions Judge constituted contempt of court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A parallel enquiry conducted by an officer, when the same subject is sub judice, amounts to a contempt of court. However, in the present case, the District Collector did not conduct any parallel inquiry during the crucial period and the report sent by him to the Revenue Board on the application filed by a third party was not related to the criminal complaint against the Sub Magistrate. Therefore, the District Collector was not guilty of contempt of court. 2. The Public Prosecutor did not ask the Sessions Judge to represent the facts of the departmental enquiry to the court. The Public Prosecutor only replied to a question of the Sessions Judge, which he should do under the circumstances. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor was not guilty of contempt of court. 3. The Public Prosecutor's statement in court in response to a question from the Sessions Judge did not constitute contempt of court. An advocate is not guilty of contempt of court for answering truthfully to a query of the Judge.
Final Decision: The application for contempt of court was dismissed with costs of Rs. 300.00.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Ss. 3 and 4 of Act 32 of 1952 for committing the respondents for contempt of Court. Respondent 1 is the District Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur, Respondent 2 is Personal Assistant to respondent 1 and Additional District Magistrate and respondent 3 is the acting Public Prosecutor, Guntur.
( 2 ) THE circumstances under which this petition was filed may be briefly stated. The petitioner is a native of Sattanepalli village and worked as a Jamedar during the war. Thereafter he worked as Taluk Surveyor for some time and had been working temporarily as clerk at Guntur or Statane Palli in the Revenue offices. He filed a complaint for breach of trust of court properties against Sri Wahab Sahib, the then Stationary Sub Magistrate, Sattenepalli and others before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Guntur. It was transferred to the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Narasaraopet, who dismissed the same under S. 203, Criminal P. C. The petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision against the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate to the Sessions Judge, Guntur. The petitioners case is that, pending the revision, the three respondents did some acts interfering with the course of justice and that, therefore, they are liable to be punished for contempt.
( 3 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the petition he made the following allegations in support of his case. The Criminal Revision was posted to 13. 9. 1954 for hearing and the Sessions Judge gave notice to respondent 3 to assist him on the legal aspect viz. , whether S. 197, Criminal P. C. , was or was not a bar for the prosecution. On the hearing date when the matter was about to be taken up, respondent 3 rose up and, with the permission of the Court, stated that the contents of the revision petition against the Sub Magistrate were false, that respondents 1 and 2 in their departmental capacity enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that they were false, that they land intimated the said fact to the Government and that they had also intimated to him and asked him to represent the said facts to the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge adjourned the case to 21. 9. 1954 and again to 15. 10. 1954. The first two respondents, with the knowledge that the matter was sub judice, communicated the aforesaid facts to the Government and to respondent 3 and thereby prejudiced the mind of the Judge and obstructed the due course of justice.
( 4 ) RESPONDENT 1, in his counter, denied that he committed any act of contempt and placed before the Court the circumstances under which he communicated certain facts to the Public Prosecutor. According to him the petitioner filed a complaint before him. On that petition, he called for the records, but, as he came to know that an identical complaint was filed before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Narasaraopet and that it was dropped, he rejected it on the ground that no action was necessary as the Additional First Class Magistrates Court had held on 13. 7. 1954 that it was false after a due enquiry and on merits. One Sakkumuri Sithayya and some residents of Gudipudi village filed petitions against the Sub Magistrate to the High Court and the Government and the Board of Revenue sent them for enquiry to him. He made an enquiry into those petitions as directed by the Revenue Board and the Government directed the matter to be dropped. Even this report was sent by him on 11. 6. 1954 i. e. , after the Additional First Class Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 17. 5. 1954 and before the Criminal Revision was filed on 7. 8. 1954. When on 23. 8. 1954 the Public Prosecutor wrote to respondent I stating that the complainant had filed similar petitions to the Collector and to the Government and that the connected files might be made available to him for reference in opposing the Revision Petition, respondent 2 wrote back to the Public Prosecutor that the petition filed by the complainant to the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
