Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. CHAKRAVARTTI, S. C. LAHIRI
SAIBAL KUMAR GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
B. K. SEN - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Case 38 Of 1958
Decided On : JUNE 04, 1958
CONTEMPT OF COURT - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT - JURISDICTION - CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - PROCEEDINGS - NATURE - COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND - JUDICATURE ACT, 1873, SECTION 47 - CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1952 - LETTERS PATENT, CLAUSE 15 - ARTICLE 134 (1) (C) OF THE CONSTITUTION - DISTINCTION BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY - FINDING OF CONTEMPT - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - KNOWLEDGE OF PENDING LITIGATION - MATERIALITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Councilors of the Corporation of Calcutta, were found guilty of contempt of Court for investigating matters awaiting decision by the Court and the Court of a Magistrate in a criminal proceeding against one Mr. B. K. Sen, the Commissioner of the Corporation. The petitioners sought a certificate under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
1. Proceedings taken against a person for contempt of Court are neither civil nor criminal, but sui generis. 2. Criminal contempt is not an offence as defined in the Criminal Procedure Code or any statute, but proceedings for its punishment can be criminal proceedings. 3. The jurisdiction to punish for contempt of Court is derived from the fact that the Court is a Court of Record and not from any statute. 4. Proceedings taken for the punishment of criminal contempt are criminal proceedings. 5. An appeal lies to the Supreme Court on a certificate granted by a High Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution. 6. The distinction between civil and criminal contempt is based on the nature of the delinquency and not on the nature of the proceeding taken for its punishment. 7. The scope of enquiry in a contempt proceeding is whether the conduct of the contemner tends to interfere with the administration of justice or to create an atmosphere of prejudice against a party to a pending litigation. 8. The finding of contempt must be based on legal evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether proceedings taken against a person for contempt of Court are criminal proceedings? 2. Whether an appeal lies to the Supreme Court on a certificate granted by a High Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the distinction between civil and criminal contempt is based on the nature of the delinquency or on the nature of the proceeding taken for its punishment? 4. What is the scope of enquiry in a contempt proceeding? 5. Whether the finding of contempt must be based on legal evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Proceedings taken against a person for contempt of Court are neither civil nor criminal, but sui generis. 2. Criminal contempt is not an offence as defined in the Criminal Procedure Code or any statute, but proceedings for its punishment can be criminal proceedings. 3. The jurisdiction to punish for contempt of Court is derived from the fact that the Court is a Court of Record and not from any statute. 4. Proceedings taken for the punishment of criminal contempt are criminal proceedings. 5. An appeal lies to the Supreme Court on a certificate granted by a High Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution. 6. The distinction between civil and criminal contempt is based on the nature of the delinquency and not on the nature of the proceeding taken for its punishment. 7. The scope of enquiry in a contempt proceeding is whether the conduct of the contemner tends to interfere with the administration of justice or to create an atmosphere of prejudice against a party to a pending litigation. 8. The finding of contempt must be based on legal evidence.
Final Decision: The application for a certificate under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution is allowed.
( 1 ) THE three petitioners before us have been found by a Division Beach to have committed contempt of this Court as also the Court of a Magistrate and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each. They are all Councilors of the Corporation of Calcutta and one of them, Mr. S. K. Gupta, is also the present Chairman of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. The finding against them is that they, as members of a Special Committee set up by the Corporation, took it upon themselves to investigate into and decide certain matters which were awaiting decision by this Court and the Court of the Magistrate in a criminal proceeding against one Mr. B. K. Sen. Mr. B. K. Sen, who is the Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta, was the petitioner before the learned Judges and is the sole respondent before us. The learned Judges have found that the petitioners before us embarked upon an enquiry as to Mr. Sen's conduct in relation to the litigation and thus embarked upon a course of conduct which was calculated to interfere with the administration of justice and thereby they committed contempt of the Courts before which the litigation was pending. The petitioners desire to appeal to the Supreme Court against that decision and have made the present application for a certificate under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution.
( 2 ) THE first question is whether the application lies. Article 134 (1) (c) provides that, subject to there being a certificate of fitness by the High Court concerned, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India. It is thus clear that in order that an order of a High Court, sought to be appealed from, may come under the Article, it is necessary that it should be an order made in a criminal proceeding. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that proceedings taken against a person for contempt of Court are not criminal proceedings at all and, therefore, no certificate under Article 134 (l) (c) could be asked for for the purposes of an appeal to the Supreme Court against an order made in such proceedings. That was the only ground on which the maintainability of the present application was questioned.
( 3 ) BROADLY speaking, proceedings taken with respect to contempt of Court have been held to be neither civil nor criminal, but to be a class by them selves and thus sui generis. For the purposes of an appeal to the Supreme Court on a certificate granted by a High Court, the Constitution recognises three kinds of proceedings, namely, 'civil' proceedings which are dealt with in Article 133, 'criminal proceedings which are dealt with in Article 134 and 'other proceedings which are dealt with along with civil and criminal proceedings, in Article 132. The last-mentioned Article, however, is limited to cases which involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Stated in terms of the Constitution, the respondent's objection before us is that proceedings taken against a person for contempt of Court are "other proceedings" and where, as here, there is no question as to the interpretation of the Constitution, no appeal from an order made in such proceedings lies to the Supreme Court on a certificate granted by a High Court. Necessarily, an application for a certificate in such a case does not come under Article 134 (1) (c ).
( 4 ) IT is well settled that contempt of Court may be of two kinds, namely, civil contempt and criminal contempt. When an order made for the benefit of a party is disregarded or violated and the Court enforces the order by punishing the delinquent for contempt, it is said that such proceeding is a form of execution and the contempt concerned is of a civil nature. Where, however, the contempt consists in offering an affront to the court or in interfering Or tendering to interfere with the administration of justice, there is a public w
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
