Decided on April 18,1952

STATE Appellant


Imam, J. - (1.) The rule was issued upon the opposite party to show cause why proceedings in contempt should not be started against him lor disobeying the order of this Court dated 21/4/1950, by which he was directed that if he considered it necessary that fresh proceedings should be taken, he should proceed either under Section 145, or against both parties under Section 107. In order to appreciate as to whether the circumstances indicate contempt committed by the opposite party, it is necessary to set out certain facts. As a result of a police report, the opposite party as Subdivisional Officer of Moti-hari drew up proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P. C. on 21-11-1949 against the second party consisting of ten persons, including one Jaigopal Prasad Singh. There was a reference to this Court recommending the quashing of these proceedings and that reference was accepted by Agarwala J. on 21-4-1950, whereby the proceedings drawn up were quashed and the magistrate was directed to proceed either under Section 145, or against both parties under Section 107, should it become necessary to institute fresh proceedings.
(2.) On 5-9-1950, the police submitted a report against Jaigopal Prasad Singh as the first party and Hardeo Mehra and Ram Charitar Lal as the second party, under Section 107, Criminal P. C. On this police report, the magistrate drew up proceedings under 107 of the Code against Jaigopal Prasad Singh only. When Jaigopal Prasad Singh appeared before the magistrate on 15-9-1950, he filed a petition showing cause against the proceedings which had been drawn up against him. In that petition, there was pointed reference to the fact that the previous proceedings under Section 107 had been quashed by this Court by its order dated 21-4-1950. It was further contended in the petition that the fresh proceedings which had been drawn up were illegal and in defiance of the order of this Court. A further petition was filed on that date before the magistrate praying that the proceeding may be stayed, but the magistrate thought that this petition was a frivolous one and he directed that the opposite party, namely, Jaigopal Prasad Singh must execute a bond of Rs. 500/- with two sureties of Rs. 250/- each, by 16-9-1950. Jaigopal Prasad Singh then moved the Sessions Judge, who made a reference to this Court recommending that fresh proceedings under Section 107 drawn up against Jaigopal Prasad Singh should be quashed. In that letter of reference attention of this Court was drawn to the fact that the magistrate concerned, namely, the opposite party, had disobeyed the order of Agarwala J. The reference was accepted & the proceedings under Section 107 were quashed on 17-12-1951 by Shearer, J, who, at the same time, called upon the magistrate concerned to explain as to how he came to disregard the order of Agarwala J.
(3.) The opposite party has suggested in his explanation that the order of this Court passed by Agarwala, J. was not shown to him, and he did not know at the time because of that, that such an order had in fact been passed although the show cause petition did make mention of it. He has further submitted that the disobedience of the order of Agarwala J. was not intentional and he offered an unqualified apology for having in fact disobeyed the order when he had no real intention in doing so.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.