TMI Blog1972 (1) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis of that report investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet for offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 Indian panel court against a number of persons. No charge sheet was submitted against Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey. During the course of commitment proceedings, the committing magistrate ordered that Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey be summoned for May 15, 1966 as accused. 3. Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey filed revision petitions against the order of the committing magistrate, but the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr as per order dated May 5, 1967. It was held that Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey had been rightly summoned. 4. After the dismissal of the revision petition, an application was filed by the Assistant District Prosecutor on September 18, 1967 in the Court of the learned magistrate for withdrawal of the case against Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey on the ground that it was inexpedient for State and public policy to prosecute them. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant and others, the committing magistrate dismissed the said application on October 6, 1967. It was observed that the application for withdr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Law Secretary recommended against withdrawal of the prosecution pointing out that there was a prim a facie case and justice demanded that it should be thrashed out in Court. Shri Hasibur Rahman, however, ignored the advice of the District Magistrate as well as of the Law Secretary and ordered on 10th September, 1907 that the case should be withdrawn. A petition for withdrawal was accordingly filed on 18th September, 1967, but was rejected by the trial Court. Thereupon Shri Hasibur Rahman directed that a revision should be filed in the High Court against the refusal of the trial Court to allow withdrawal of the case. A revision was accordingly filed, which is still pending before the High Court. Shri Hasibur Rahman thus by misuse of his official position and power unnecessarily interfered with the administration of justice in a serious case of rioting with murder. 7. The notification relating to the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry along with the schedule containing the different allegations was published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary dated March 12, 1968. The same day the appellant, who was one of the ministers of Bihar, gave for publication to the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice. This right is exercised in India by all Courts when contempt is committed in facie curiae and by the superior Courts on their own behalf or on behalf of Courts subordinate to them even if committed outside the Courts. Formerly, it was regarded as inherent in the powers of a Court of Record and now by the Constitution of India, it is a part of the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. There are many kinds of contempts. The chief forms of contempt are insult to judges, attacks upon them, comment on pending proceedings with a tendency to prejudice fair trial, obstruction to officers of Courts, witnesses or the parties, abusing the process of the Court, breach of duty by officers connected with the Court and scandalising the judges or the Courts. The last form occurs, generally speaking, when the conduct of a person tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard. In this conduct are included all acts which bring the Court into disrepute or disrespect or which offend its dignity, affront its majesty or challenge its majority. 11. The matter was also dealt with by this Court Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to obstruct the due course of justice or due administration of law. As intention of the contemner to cause those consequences is not a necessary ingredient of contempt of Court and it is enough to show that his act was calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice and administration of Law, there would be quite a number of cases wherein the contempt alleged would be of a technical nature. In such cases, the Court would exercise circumspection and judicial restraint in the matter of taking action for contempt of Court. The Court has to take into account the surrounding circumstances and the material facts of the case and on conspectus of them to come to a conclusion whether because of some contumacious conduct or other sufficient reason the person proceeded against should be punished for contempt of court. 13. Let us now examine the facts of the present case in the light of what has been stated above. The gravamen of the charge against the appellant is that during the pendency in the High Court of the two revision petitions mentioned earlier, he handed over to the representatives of the press for publication in the newspapers the notification, including the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty to the notification and further to provide authenticity to the contents of that notification in case some dispute arises with regard to the contents. 15. What was given to the press for publication in the present case was the notification issued under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. The present is not a case wherein only part of the notification or some portions of the allegations were given for publication to the press with a view to give emphasis to any part of the allegation. On the contrary, what was given to the press was the entire notification. 16. The subject matter of the inquiry before the Commission as set forth in allegation No. J-4 was whether there was any misuse of official position on the part of Shri Hasibur Rahman when he directed against the recommendation of the Law Secretary and the District Magistrate, the withdrawal of the prosecution against Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey. The question for decision which, however, was the subject of criminal revision petitions pending in Patna High Court was whether the order of the magistrate dismissing the application for withdrawal of prosecution was contrary to law. The two matters were distinct and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
