SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI AND R.S. BACHAWAT, JJ.
Jang Bahadur Singh, Appellant
Versus
Baij Nath Tiwari, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1965,
D/-26-4-1968.
Advocates appeared
M/s. U. P. Singh and D. N. Mishra, Advocates, for Appellant; M/s. Sobhagmal Jain, S. P. Singh and J. P. Goyal Advocates, for Respondent.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 406 - Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Section 16-G - Customs Act, 1962 - Section 112 (b) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 494 - Criminal breach of trust - Contempt of court - Appellant is manager of Hiralal Memorial Intermediate College, Bhaurauli, in District of Azamgarh - Respondent was principal of College - Respondent drew from Boys Fund of college two sums of Rs. 189 for payment of scholarship to, two Harijan students for period from May to November 1963 - Held, Service of charge sheet on respondent was made in good faith and was not intended or calculated to interfere with court proceedings - We are inclined to think that respondent instituted contempt proceeding with ulterior motives - He was under suspension and was drawing half pay for doing nothing - His intention was to delay inquiry into charges against him - Appeal allowed.
Judgement
BACHAWAT, J. : The appellant is the manager of Hiralal Memorial Intermediate College, Bhaurauli, in the District of Azamgarh. The respondent was the principal of the College. On December 14, 1963 the respondent drew from the Boys Fund of the college two sums of Rs. 189 for payment of scholarship to the, two Harijan students for the period from May to November 1963. On withdrawal of the monies he sent to the Harijan Tatha Samaj Kalyan Adhikari a form called Form No.14 containing a receipt of the scholarship signed by the two students and countersigned by himself. The Adhikari wrote to the appellant informing him of the complaint made by the students that in spite of the submission of Form No. 14 they had not received the scholarship. On March 24, 1964 the District Inspector of Schools visited the College and on finding that the scholarships had not been paid called for an explanation for non-payment. On April 10, 1964 the appellant forwarded the Inspector s letter of March 24 to the respondent and asked him to give an explanation. The respondent sent a reply stating that payments were made to the students on March 31, 1964 and that the delay in payment was due to the absence of the students from the College and the fact that the register on which receipts had to be obtained were with the Inspector from December 8, 1963 to March 10, 1964. A meeting of the managing committee was called on April 14, 1964 to consider the Inspectors letter and the respondent s explanation. According to the appellant, on April 19, 1964 the managing committee met and resolved to take disciplinary action against the respondent. On April 21, 1964 the appellant passed an order suspending the respondent pending the inquiry. The order stated that it was passed in exercise of the power vested in the appellant by the rules and the resolution of the managing committee dated April 19, 1964. A copy of the resolution was attached. On April 24, 1964 the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad praying for appropriate writs quashing the order of suspension. He alleged that the appellant had no authority to pass the order and that the order was made in bad faith. On the same date the respondent obtained an ex parte order from the High Court staying the operation of the suspension order. On July 22, 1964 after hearing both the parties the High Court vacated the stay order. On December 25, 1964 the appellant served a charge sheet on the respondent. Charge No. (IV) was as follows:
"The scholarship amounts of Rs. 216/ 25 and Rs. 216/25 of Sri Karam Deo Ram and Sri Jai Raj Ram, students of Class XII for the months of May 1963 to November 1963 were withdrawn by you on 14th December, 1963 but the same have neither been disbursed to the students concerned nor refunded to the Treasury. Thus you are guilty for misappropriation of the aforesaid amount, Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:
1. Letter of D. J. O. dated 24th March, 1964.
2. Letter of H. W. O. dated 31st March, 1964.
3. Statement of students.
Thus it is evidently clear that you being entrusted with the aforesaid money have dishonestly misappropriated the amount for your own use and the poor students have been put to loss by your misconduct. As such you have committed criminal breach of trust dishonestly, punishable under Section 406 I. P. C." The respondent was required to submit his explanation by January 24, 1965. Instead of submitting his explanation the respondent filed a petition in the High Court asking for committal of the appellant for contempt of court. His contention was that the aforesaid charge was the subject-matter of inquiry in the pending writ petition, and that as the respondent had launched a parallel inquiry in the matter he had committed contempt of court. The High Court accepted the contention and held that the respondent was guilty of contempt of court and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and costs. The respondent has filed thi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.