TMI Blog1968 (7) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guilty of contempt of the High Court of Calcutta and the Sessions Court of Nadia and sentenced to fines with imprisonment in default of payment. They now appeal by special leave granted by this Court.. The facts are long and need a full narration. One Birendra Kumar Sarkar, Sub-Agent of Phosphate Co. Ltd. Krishnagar, District Nadia, was prosecuted for contravention of the Fertiliser Control Order, read with s. 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act and on his own plea was convicted and sentenced to ₹ 20 fine or simple imprisonment for 10 days. We are not concerned with his conviction. The fertiliser seized during investigation was sold by order of the Court and the sale proceeds held in deposit. On the conviction of Birendra Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13, 1964 the High Court issued a rule and also directed stay of operation of the Sessions Judge's order of December 23, 1963. It will be seen from the above facts that the actual payment of money was made under the orders of the Sessions Judge passed on December 23, 1963 as far back as January 11, 1964. The High Court has considered the question of the contempt of the Sessions Judge's order from the angle of the kind of bond which was accepted, and the Officers who accepted it. We shall come to it later. We shall now trace the progress of the orders which were passed by the Sessions Judge and the High Court in proceedings subsequent to January 1964. For this purpose it is sufficient to extract the summary of the events made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing questions:- (1) Has there been disobedience of the order of the Sessions Judge, Nadia that money should be given to Birendra Kumar Sarkar on a Bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Nadia ? (2) Was the Bond upon which pay order for the money had been made a document that complies with the order for the Sessions Judge of Nadia dated 23rd December, 1963 ? (3) Was Memo. No. 443 Jm. dated 20th January, 1964 directing to carry out Sessions Judge's order dated 23rd December, 1963 after the order of stay made by the Sessions Judge on 14th January, 1964 was received in the District Magistrate's office on 16th January 1964 by Memo. No. 108 dated 11th January 1964 an intentional violation of the stay orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Criminal Procedure Code, which excluded the use of an indemnity bond. The Sessions Judge did not order that the bond should be taken in the name of any particular court. A bond in the name of the Government of West Bengal substantially (if not wholly) complied with the order of the Sessions Judge. It could be enforced against Sarkar without any trouble. The further point that the District Magistrate alone could accept the bond ignores the powers of the Additional District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The practice of courts in Bengal is also against the proposition because such bonds are usually considered for acceptance by Additional District Magistrates. The High Court apparently thinks that the District Magistrate was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the file in which the order sheet started on 3rd January, 1964, was started separately and to seclude the features in that file it was withheld from this Court when return was made of 1964 until it was thought useful for making a defence in this Contempt Rule. No other view of the matter could be suggested by the three learned Advocates appearing for the, several parties or the learned Advocate for the State, Mr. Fanindra Mohan Sanyal, and no other view is possible. Now it seems quite impossible to subscribe to this opinion. For a conspiracy to be hatched there must be some foundation of gain or purpose. The conspirators (if they knew anything) would at least know that there was nothing to be gained by delaying the orders since the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave fairly succeeded. The High Court was extremely hard upon the appellants in this case. Details collected from the files of the case having no bearing upon the question of contempt were freely used. They carry no convincement. There are observations which in their tone do show that the matter was not approached in that cool manner in which the High Court considers contempt of itself or of courts subordinate to it. This is a matter of regret to this Court. A question whether there is contempt of court or not is a serious one. The court is both the accuser as well as the judge of the accusation. It behaves the court to act with as great circumspection as possible making all allowances for errors of judgment and difficulties arising from inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
