SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Cal) 73

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
C.K. Banerji, J.
Gouri Shanker Shaw
Vs.
Biswanath Nandy
Criminal Revision No. 1734 of 1978
Decided On : February 27, 1979

Advocates Appeared:
A.K. Panja, Sekhar K. Bose for the petitioner,
Biren Mitra, P.P., N.A. Chowdhury for the State Intervener;
Amalendu K. Pal for alleged contemnor.

A contempt proceeding is not a criminal case and therefore the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not apply.

Headnote:

CONTEMPT OF COURT - PRELIMINARY CONTENTION - RIGHT OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE - RIGHT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TO APPEAR - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, SS. 301, 397, 401, 482 - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, S. 2 - RULES OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT REGULATING PROCEDURE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT MATTERS, RULES 4, 14, 15, 26.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Gouri Shanker Shaw, filed a contempt of court petition against Biswanath Nandy, a Sub-Inspector of Police, for disobeying an order of the court directing the return of seized goods to the petitioner. The State Government and the Public Prosecutor claimed the right to intervene in the contempt proceeding and the right of the Public Prosecutor to appear without filing a vakalatnama.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the contempt proceeding was not a criminal case and therefore the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, did not apply. The court also held that the State Government and the Public Prosecutor had no right to intervene or appear in the contempt proceeding unless they were parties thereto.

Issues: 1. Whether the State Government has the right to intervene in a contempt proceeding? 2. Whether the Public Prosecutor has the right to appear in a contempt proceeding without filing a vakalatnama?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A contempt proceeding is not a criminal case and therefore the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not apply. 2. The State Government and the Public Prosecutor have no right to intervene or appear in a contempt proceeding unless they are parties thereto.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the preliminary contention of the State Government and the Public Prosecutor and held that the contempt proceeding would be heard on a later date.

JUDGMENT:

This is a proceeding for contempt of Court. A preliminary contention has been raised by Mr. Biren Mitter the learned Public Prosecutor claiming the right of the State Government to intervene in a contempt proceeding pending before this Court and the right of the Public Prosecutor to appear in such proceeding without filing any vakalatnama or other authority in that behalf.

2. It. may be necessary to narrate a few facts giving rise to the instant contempt proceeding against Biswanath Nandy a Sub-Inspector of Police in the Enforcement Branch of the West Bengal Police Force. Certain quantities of mobil oil were seized by the Police Authorities belonging to the petitioner Gouri Shanker Shaw, and in connection therewith there were various proceedings both in this court and in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. Barrackpore (hereinafter referred to as S.D.J.M., Barrackpore). Ultimately an application under Ss. 397 and 401 read with S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was made by the petitioner in this court which was heard by me on the 14th October 1978. Miss Uma Banerjee the learned Advocate fur the State appeared at the hearing. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties I issued a rule calling upon the State to show cause why the order complained of by the petitioner should not be set aside and I further directed that upon the petitioner executing a bond to the satisfaction of the S.D.J.M., Barrackpore the goods seized in connection with the Kharda P. S. Case No. 98(8) of 1977 be made over to the petitioner and the petitioner was directed not to sell, dispose of or Otherwise encumber the said goods until the disposal of the rule. The rule was made returnable one week after the long vacation. Subsequently on the prayer of the petitioner I directed that the petitioner be furnished with a plain copy of my said order counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar of this Court. Thereafter un the application of the petitioner the S.D.J.M., Barrackpore made an order on the 19th October 1978 directing return of the seized goods to the petitioner on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- and the petitioner in accordance with my order dated 14th October 1978 was again directed not to sell, dispose of or otherwise encumber the seized goods until the disposal of the said rule pending in this court. It appears that on the 19th October 1978 the petitioner executed a bond for Rs. 10,000/- which was accepted by the S.D.J.M., Barrackpore, it further appears that in spite of my said order dated 14th October 1978 and the said order dated 19th October 1978 passed by the S.D.J.M. Barrackpore the alleged Condemner as an investigating officer in the said Kharda P.S. Case No. 98(8) of 1977 in whose custody the said seized goods were lying, did not return the said goods to the petitioner on the ground that he had not received the order of the S.D.J.M., Barrackpore. Thereafter the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the order dated 19th October 1978 passed by the S.D.J.M., Barrackpore and is said to have handed over the same to the alleged contemner, but the alleged contemner refused to deliver the said goods to the petitioner on the plea that the Number of the premises wherefrom the said goods were seized was not mentioned in my order dated 14th October 1978 and unless my said order was modified or clarified specifying the number of the said premises the said goods could not be delivered to the petitioner. On the 3rd November, 1978 the petitioner moved before me the instant application for contempt of court against the alleged contemner inter alia for violation of and disobedience to my said order dated 14th October 1978 when I issued a rule and directed the alleged contemner to deliver the seized goods to the petitioner on the bond furnished by the petitioner as directed by the S.D.J.M, Barrackpore by his order dated 19th October 1978, on the said terms and condition as contained in my said order dated 14th Oc

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top