D JONES SHIELD Vs. N RAMESAM
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Referred Judgements :-
DAWKINS V. LORD ROKEBY
MUNSTER V. LAMB
NIRMAL SINGH V. GAINDA MAL
KING VS. PARMANAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Rao, C.J. -
(1.)This is a petition under Ss. 3 and 4 of Act 32 of 1952 for committing the respondents for contempt of Court. Respondent 1 is the District Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur, Respondent 2 is Personal Assistant to respondent 1 and Additional District Magistrate and respondent 3 is the acting Public Prosecutor, Guntur.
(2.)The circumstances under which this petition was filed may be briefly stated. The petitioner is a native of Sattanepalli village and worked as a Jamedar during the war. Thereafter he worked as Taluk Surveyor for some time and had been working temporarily as clerk at Guntur or Statane Palli in the Revenue offices. He filed a complaint for breach of trust of court properties against Sri Wahab Sahib, the then Stationary Sub Magistrate, Sattenepalli and others before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Guntur.It was transferred to the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Narasaraopet, who dismissed the same under S. 203, Criminal P. C. The petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision against the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate to the Sessions Judge, Guntur. The petitioners case is that, pending the revision, the three respondents did some acts interfering with the course of justice and that, therefore, they are liable to be punished for contempt.
(3.)In the affidavit filed in support of the petition he made the following allegations in support of his case. The Criminal Revision was posted to 13.9.1954 for hearing and the Sessions Judge gave notice to respondent 3 to assist him on the legal aspect viz., whether S. 197, Criminal P. C., was or was not a bar for the prosecution.On the hearing date when the matter was about to be taken up, respondent 3 rose up and, with the permission of the Court, stated that the contents of the revision petition against the Sub Magistrate were false, that respondents 1 and 2 in their departmental capacity enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that they were false, that they land intimated the said fact to the Government and that they had also intimated to him and asked him to represent the said facts to the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge adjourned the case to 21.9.1954 and again to 15.10.1954. The first two respondents, with the knowledge that the matter was sub judice, communicated the aforesaid facts to the Government and to respondent 3 and thereby prejudiced the mind of the Judge and obstructed the due course of justice.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.