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

1952 Supreme(All) 145

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
P. L. BHARGAVA, BEG, JJ.
Lal Behari
Versus
State through the Special Manager, Court of Wards, Sitapur
Criminal Misc. Nos.477, 478 and 479 of 1951
Decided On : 26-05-1952

Advocates:
S.C. Das and J., S.Trivedi, for Applicants; Saraswati Prasad, for Opposite Party; Addl. Govt. Advocate, for the State.

Headnote:

CONTEMPT OF COURT - Special Manager, Court of Wards - Interference with Judicial Proceedings - Communication with Presiding Officer - Attempt to Influence Court's Decision - Offence Established - Apology Rejected - Fine and Costs Imposed - Transfer of Cases from District.

Fact of the Case:

The Special Manager, Court of Wards, Rampur Mathura estate, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Sitapur and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli, requesting them to take action in a case under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, and to attach the disputed crops. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order accordingly. The applicants, who were the opposite parties in the case, filed an application in the High Court alleging contempt of court by the Special Manager.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the Special Manager's actions were calculated to influence the decision of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and constituted a serious form of contempt of court. The Court rejected the Special Manager's apology and imposed a fine and costs on him.

Issues: Whether the Special Manager's actions constituted contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi: Any private communication by a party to a case or even a stranger to a cause addressed or made to the presiding officer of a court, which is calculated to influence his decision in a pending case, constitutes a most serious form of contempt. The offence is graver when such remarks are directed specifically to the particular officer who is seised of the case and responsible for the effectual administration of justice in the matter.

Final Decision: The High Court found the Special Manager guilty of contempt of court and ordered him to pay a fine and costs. The Court also transferred the two cases pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli, to Lucknow district.

Judgement

BEG, J. :- These are three applications, one of which is an application for contempt of Court against the Special Manager, Court of Wards, Sitapur incharge Rampur Mathura estate (Criminal Misc. Appln. No.479 of 1951) and other two are applications for the transfer of two cases pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sidhauli. district Sitapur (Criminal Misc. Applns. Nos.477 and 478 of 1951). The circumstances which have given rise to these applications may be briefly stated as follows :

2. Rampur Mathura estate and Kapurthala estate in Avadh are seperated by the river Gogra which constantly changes its course. On account of alluvion and diluvion disputes constantly arise regarding the boundaries of the two estates. Rampur Mathura estate is under the superintendence of the Court of Wards and Sri Baibir Saran Das was the Special Manager of the Court of Wards in the month of October 1951. One Mitunjai Bakhsh Singh, who alleged himself to be the tenant of certain plots situated in Rampur Mathura estate, applied on 15-10-1951, to the Special Manager, Court of Wards, Sri Baibir Saran Das, stating that he was a tenant of Rampur Mathura estate, and that Sardar Sohan Singh Tehsildar Kapurthala Estate and others were raising a dispute about the possession of the plots and praying that proper steps may be taken against them. The special Manager, incharge of Rampur Mathura estate, directed the said Mirtunjai Baksh Singh to file a complaint under S.145, Criminal P.C. On 16-10-1951, the said Special Manager, Court of Wards, Rampur Mathura estate, sent a report to the Deputy Commissioner of Sitapur about the proposed application under S.145, Criminal P.C. by Jagatpal Singh, who was the mukhtar of Mirtunjai Bakhsh Singh and was going to file an application on behalf of his master before the S.D.O., Sidhauli. The last paragraph of this report runs as follows : "The S.D.O., Sidhauli may be asked to look into this matter carefully and do needful." On this report the remark of the Deputy Commissioner was "seen".

On 17-10-1951, the said Mirtunjai Bakhsh Singh through his mukhtar Jagat Pal Singh put in his application for action being taken under S.145, Criminal P.C. against the applicants in the Court of Sri S.N. Sharma Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli. On 18-10-1951, the Special Manager Rampur Mathura resubmitted his report of 16-10-1951, with the remark that "as orders have not been passed on portion marked X of my report hence it is resubmitted." The portion marked X referred to his report of 16-10-1951, in which he had requested the Deputy Commissioner to ask the S.D.O., Sidhauli to look into the matter carefully and do the needful. After the file was submitted to him again the Deputy Commissioner passed the following order :

"This will be done when the S.D.O. comes to see me and you may also bring this fact to his notice."

On 29-10-1951, the Special Manager, Court of Wards, after referring to the various reports and orders mentioned above wrote to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli as follows :

"Please see this. I will speak to you when we meet. Attachment of crop is absolutely necessary." On the same date the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Sidhauli passed a preliminary order attaching the crops. The actual order runs as follows : "Whereas I am satisfied from the report of S.O. Thangaon and of Special Manager Court of Wards that there is dispute likely to result in breach of peace regarding cultivated areas mentioned in Jagatpal Singhs application of plots Nos.1626 and 1180 situated in village Keora and plot No.466 situated in village Soharia, I hereby order that the contending parties be called to appear before me on 17-11-51 and put in written statements of their respective claims of possession. I further order that the disputed land along with crops standing thereon be put under attachment at once. The crops should be given in the supurdagi of some reliable and independent person of the locality."

The above procee

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top