Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. K. SEN , VINOD KUMAR GUPTA
ASIT KUMAR DASGUPTA, C.M.M., CALCUTTA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
F. M. A. T. 2445 Of 1996
Decided On : 05/23/1997
CONTEMPT OF COURT - PUBLICATION - SECTION 2(C) AND 14 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 - INTERPRETATION - TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE ALLEGED CONTEMPTOR AND THE JUDGE - WHETHER AMOUNTS TO PUBLICATION - SCOPE OF SECTION 14 - WHETHER THE LEARNED JUDGE WAS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE RULE UNDER SECTION 14.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Calcutta, was alleged to have made certain remarks to a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court over the phone, criticising the move of the High Court and the order of the Chief Justice calling for copies of judgments delivered by him and few other members of the service for considering their eligibility for granting extension of service beyond 58 years. The learned single Judge, on being informed of the conversation, issued a show cause notice to the appellant under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and subsequently issued a Rule calling upon the appellant to show cause why he should not be committed to prison or otherwise penalised or dealt with for having wilfully committed contempt of Court under Section 14 of the said Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the telephonic conversation between the appellant and the learned single Judge did not amount to publication within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and therefore the appellant could not be held to have committed contempt of Court. The Court further held that the learned single Judge was not justified in invoking jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act, as the alleged conversation was not committed "in the view of the Court", that is, it was not committed in or near about a Court Room where a Judge could see it being committed nor was it committed in the course of judicial proceedings or when judicial proceedings were on in any court.
Issues: 1. Whether the telephonic conversation between the appellant and the learned single Judge amounted to publication within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? 2. Whether the learned single Judge was justified in invoking jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Publication, as contemplated in Section 2(c) of the Act, should be given the meaning as is likely to be used in common parlance and in the ordinary course of things. Publication may be private or public, but it has to be made in such a manner so as not to restrict its communication to an individual alone, through a method or by adopting such means which would prevent or preclude any one else from being made aware of the same. 2. The expression "upon its own view" used in the Section 14 (1) of the Act clearly and unmistakably stipulates and suggests that a person has committed the contempt of Court and is thus guilty of such act, "in the view of the High Court or Supreme Court" as the case may be. The three expressions "upon its own view", "contempt committed", and "in its presence or hearing" lead to only one conclusion and that is that the person charged has committed an act of omission or commission, amounting to contempt in the view of the Court itself, that is, either in the court room where judicial proceedings are going on, thus seen by the Judge or, in the course of judicial proceedings at such place where the person charged with the commission of the act, is being seen by Judge of the Court.
Final Decision: The Court discharged the Rule issued by the learned single Judge and held that the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 were null and void.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Contempt Rule issued by learned single Judge of this Court. The appellant is the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Calcutta. Before issuing the Contempt Rule, the learned single Judge also issued a show cause notice. The circumstances under which the said notice to show cause before issuing contempt Rule was issued as appears from the said notice is set out hereinunder :"this is to record that sometime back in the last part of February this year between 16-2-1996 and 23-2-1996, Shri Asit Kumar Dasgupta, a member of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service, posted as Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta while talking to me over phone at my chamber in a most objectionable, intemperate, annoying and insulting language criticised the move of the High Court and the order of the present Chief Justice calling for copies of judgments delivered by him and few other members of the service for considering their eligibility for granting extension of service beyond 58 years. He asked me to see that copies of judgments were not called for and to tell the Chief Justice that he should not take the matter as in the domain of his father's zamindari inasmuch as many thieves in the Judicial service were allowed extension of their services by this Court on previous occasions without considering their judgments. "
( 2 ) IT further appears from the said order issuing notice that the learned Judge being taken aback to hear that a senior officer of the subordinate judiciary could talk to a sitting Judge of the High Court over phone in his chamber in such language challenging the authority of the High Court and abusing the Chief Justice. He informed the same to a senior Judge of this Court of the communication and the matter was duly reported in writing to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice ultimately in his letter dated 17-4-1996 informed the learned Judge that he had referred, the matter to a committee consisting of Justice Samir Kumar Mookherjee, Justice U. C. Banerjee, Justice B. P. Banerjee, Justice N. K. Mitra and Justice A. K. Dutta and promised to communicate their report as and when required.
( 3 ) BUT according to the learned Judge although more than one and half months have passed since then nothing has been communicated to the learned Judge in this regard from the end of the Chief Justice. No positive action has been taken against the said officer departmentally or legally. In view of the above conduct of the said officer, the matter, in his opinion, should not be allowed to lie dormant, unattended, ignored and unpunished taking the dignity and authority of this Court. In his view, by making such remarks the aforesaid officer has scandalised and lowered the authority of this Court and is thus guilty of contempt committed in his hearing for which he should be proceeded against for criminal contempt of Court under Section 14 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. But, at the time before issuing a Rule of Contempt, the said officer may be given a chance to explain his conduct before this Court.
( 4 ) PURSUANT to the said notice served upon the appellant, the appellant duly replied to the same. In the said reply, the appellant denied the allegations made against him. The learned Judge apparently being not satisfied with the said reply issued a Rule calling upon the appellant to show cause why he should not be committed to prison or otherwise penalised or dealt with for having wilfully committed contempt of Court under Section 14 of the said Act in the manner recorded in the first paragraph of his order dated 6-6-1996 treating the same as a description of the contempt he has committed.
( 5 ) MR. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the allegation made against the appellant, even if it is true, does not amount to criminal contempt under Section 2 (c) of the said Act. He has further submitted that under Section 14
AI
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
