Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DIBAKAR SATPATHY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGESOF THE HIGH COURT OF ORI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
14/03/1961
BENCH:
MUDHOLKAR, J.R.
BENCH:
MUDHOLKAR, J.R.
SUBBARAO, K.
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
CITATION:
1961 AIR 1315 1962 SCR (1) 326
ACT:
Contempt of Court--Circular directing magistrates to ignore
decision of High Court--If amounts to contempt.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant an Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue,
circulated to the District Magistrates, the opinions of the
Legal Remembrance and the Advocate General with an
endorsement directing that a procedure contrary to that
indicated by the High Court, be followed "until the matter
is carried to the High Court in some case, so that the
confusion created by the Orissa High Court decision A I.R.
1951 Orissa 40 might be set at rest".
Held, that the appellant was clearly guilty of contempt of
Court. He gave a direction to the Magistrates to ignore the
decision of the High Court even though that was binding on
them. This was a flagrant interference with the
administration of justice by courts.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 2 of
1960.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
February 19, 1958, of the Orissa High Court in Original
Criminal Misc. Case No. 8 of 1957.
A.V. Viswanatha Sastri, H. R. Khanna and T. M. Sen, for
the appellant.
H. V. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, B. M.
Patnaik, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath,
for respondent No. 1.
1961. March 14. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MUDHOLKAR, J.-The appellant who, at the relevant time, was
Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue, Orissa, has been
admonished for contempt of court and directed to pay the
costs of the proceedings before the High Court of Orissa.
The occasion for the institution of contempt proceedings
against the appellant
327
was the circulation of the view of the Legal Remembrancer
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
and the Advocate,-General to the District Magistrates of the
Northern Division of Orissa dated January 19, 1955, in which
the following endorsement appears:
"I am directed to enclose copies of the
opinions of the Legal Remembrancer and of the
Advocate General and to say that the Law
Department are of opinion that no special
authorization is necessary to empower
Magistrates to take cognizance under section
20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. This may be
followed until the matter is carried to the
High Court in some case, so that the confusion
created by the Orissa High Court decision
reported in All India Reporter 1951 Orissa,
page 40 might be set at rest."
This endorsement bears the signature of the appellant.
After the attention of the High Court was drawn to the
aforesaid endorsement it caused notices to be issued not
only to the Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue but also
to the Legal Remembrancer of Orissa to show cause way they
should not be committed for contempt., Both of them showed
cause. The High Court absolved the Legal Remembrancer but
convicted the appellant and admonished him, as already
stated. It may be mentioned that both of them had tendered
apologies to the High Court. Even so, we think that the
appellant was rightly found guilty of contempt of court and
admonished as well as required to pay the costs of the
proceedings.
The point on which the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer was
sought was whether a Magistrate authorised by the District
Magistrate to take cognisance of offences under s. 190, Code
of Criminal Procedure, can be regarded as a Magistrate
authorised by the District Magistrate as contemplated by s.
20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. In the case referred to in
the endorsement of the appellant, the Orissa High Court had
taken the view following the decision in Raghu Singh v.
Abdul Wahab (1) that authorisation is necessary. The
decision in Raghu Singh v. Abdul Wahab (1) was
(1) (1896) I.L.R. 23,Cal. 442.
328
dissented from in Budhan Mahto v. Issur Singh (1) and it
does not appear that this fact was brought to the notice of
the Orissa High Court. The Legal Remembrancer to whom the
matter was referred submitted a note which, according to the
High Court, was "something ambiguous and did not deal with
all questions--consequential and ancillary". In spite of
that the appellant, in his endorsement, gave a direction to
the Magistrates to ignore the decision of the High Court
even though that was binding on them. We have not the least
doubt that such a direction is a flagrant interference with
the administration of justice by courts and a clear contempt
of court. Upon this view we dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.