IMAM - (1.) THE appellants were convicted for contempt of court and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 by the Calcutta High Court. THEy applied to the High Court for a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court which was granted. Hence the present appeal.
(2.) ON 19/03/1955, one Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alipore, against the respondent B. K. Sen under S. 497 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate after examining numerous witnesses declined to frame a charge and discharged the accused under S. 253(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by his order dated 13/07/1957. Against the order of discharge Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury filed a revisional application before the Sessions Judge of 24 Paraganas, who by his order dated 22/11/1957, directed further enquiry. ON 3/01/1958, the Magistrate while holding further enquiry, as directed, allowed the prosecution to tender further evidence. ON 3/02/1958, the accused B. K. Sen filed a revision petition in the Calcutta High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge directing further enquiry as well as the order of the Magistrate permitting the prosecution to lead further evidence. The High Court thereupon issued a Rule and stayed further proceedings. The respondent B. K. Sen held the office of Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation at the time he filed his petition in the Calcutta High Court for proceedings against the appellants for contempt of court. According to that petition, at a special meeting of the Calcutta Corporation held on 16/01/1958, the Mayor suggested the formation of a committee for discussion of necessary and appropriate steps to be taken with a view to eradicate alleged malpractices prevailing in different departments of the Corporation. At this meeting Satyananda Bhattacharjee made certain wild allegations against B. K. Sen. Two resolutions were passed at the meeting, one of which, authorised the Mayor to constitute a Special Committee to give effect to the suggestions and objectives indicated by the Mayor in his statement dated 10/01/1958. On 14/02/1958, at an ordinary meeting of the Calcutta Corporation the aforesaid Bhattacharjee repeated his allegations made at the previous meeting of January 16. At the meeting it was resolved that a Special Committee be set up and the appellants were elected at members of the committee. The Special Committee was to enquire into certain allegations made against certain officials of the Corporation who are said to have taken advantage of their office in carrying on business in their own names. The resolution was in the following terms : "That a Special Committee consisting of Councillors Shri S.K. Gupta, Shri R. N. Majumdar and Shri S.K. Roy be set up to enquire into the allegations levelled against certain officials of the Corporation who are alleged to have been taking advantage of their high offices in carrying on business in their own names. The Committee will take up only those matters that relate to the Corporation." The record of the contempt proceedings in the High Court shows that at a meeting of the Calcutta Corporation, on 26/03/1958, Bhattacharjee informed the Mayor that on 14/02/1958, he had mentioned on the floor of the House certain charges against some high officials of the Corporation and that the Mayor had asked him to submit his papers to the Special Committee. Bhattacharjee further informed the Mayor that the day before, at a sitting of the Special Committee, he wanted to hand over to the Special Committee some papers that were with him, but the Special Committee would not take them and had stated that they would enquire into "open case only". Bhattacharjee then asked the Mayor to request the Special Committee to enquire into all the allegations made by him. On this, the Mayor asked Bhattacharjee to hand over the papers to him. Then the Mayor stated that if that was not written in the proceedings he would take it that day that all the papers would be sent to the Special Committee.
(3.) ACCORDING to B. K. Sen, on 11/04/1958, Bimala Kanta Roy was examined by the Committee and he admitted that his case against B. K. Sen under S. 497 of the Indian Penal Code was at that time pending consideration before the High Court. Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury then alleged that either the witnesses themselves or their near relations got appointments in the Corporation of Calcutta. Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury had specifically mentioned one Tarak Nath Dey. The entire purpose of the statement of Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury was to prove the truth of his allegations that B. K. Sen had abused his official position and had created a situation which made it impossible for him to produce relevant witnesses to prove his case. The Special Committee then caused the production of Tarak Nath Dey and confronted him with Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury. Tarak Nath Dey was then examined but denied that he was the agent of the wife of Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury or the Tadbirkar of B. K. Sen. The Special Committee went out of their way to traverse the grounds and take evidence on matters which were directly and substantially in issue and were pending in the Calcutta High Court. B. K. Sen further alleged in his petition that the appellants had set up a parallel court of enquiry for ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury. That the action of the Special Committee was calculated to create an atmosphere of prejudice against him and amounted to unwarranted interference with the free flow of justice. The action of the Special Committee had a tendency to prejudice the trial and/or to influence the decision of the case by the trial Court or by the High Court. The Special Committee thereafter issued to him a questionnaire. The relevant portions of the questionnaire are in the following terms:- "III(a) It is alleged that between 4/01/1956 and 20/09/1957, i.e., at or about the time when the case under section 497, I. P. C., was being tried, you gave appointments to the following persons : (1) Anil Koyal (2) Jogendra Nath Mondal (3) Ahi Kanta Choudhury (4) Govinda Banerjee (5) Narendra Nath Naskar, who are related respectively to Palan Koyal, Haradhan (alias Haridhan) Mondal, Tripti Choudhury, Thakur Raj Smriti Tirtha and Upendra Naskar, who were cited as witnesses in the case. (b) It is alleged that about the same time you gave appointments to Tarak Nath Dey, Hardhan Dey, Pradip Bhaduri, Ardhangsu Mondal etc. and the condoned the punishment previously inflicted on Dhiren Mondal as they were helping you in conducting your defence in the case. (c) It is alleged that you were instrumental in securing the appointment of another probable prosecution witness Karackshya Chatterjee through one M. L. Ghosh against whom a demolition case was pending." The case of B. K. Sen before the High Court was that the action of the appellants as members of the Special Committee amounted to gross contempt of the High Court as well as of the Court of trial. Accordingly, B. K. Sen filed on 16/04/1958, his petition in the High Court for proceedings against the appellants for contempt of court. Notice was issued to the appellants by the High Court returnable the same day to show cause why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of court. On 17/04/1958, the appellants showed cause. The High Court, however, issued a Rule returnable by April 23. After hearing the parties the High Court on April 24, convicted the appellants as already stated.;