1961 (1) TMI 72 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the criminal proceedings pending in the Magistrate's Court and the High Court.
2. Nature and subject matter of the inquiry initiated by the appellants.
3. Whether the acts attributed to the appellants constituted contempt of court.
4. Appropriateness of taking contempt proceedings against the appellants.
5. Whether the punishment imposed on the appellants was excessive.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Criminal Proceedings Pending in the Magistrate's Court and the High Court:
The case originated from a complaint filed by Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury against B. K. Sen under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging adultery. The Magistrate initially discharged B. K. Sen, but the Sessions Judge ordered further inquiry, which was stayed by the High Court. The central issue was whether B. K. Sen had suborned prosecution witnesses, affecting the trial's integrity.

2. Nature and Subject Matter of the Inquiry Initiated by the Appellants:
The Special Committee, constituted by the Calcutta Corporation, was tasked with investigating allegations of malpractice within the Corporation. However, the Committee's inquiry extended into matters directly related to the pending criminal case against B. K. Sen, including allegations that he had influenced witnesses. The Committee examined witnesses and issued a questionnaire to B. K. Sen, which included questions about appointments allegedly made to suborn witnesses.

3. Whether the Acts Attributed to the Appellants Constituted Contempt of Court:
The primary legal question was whether the Committee's actions amounted to contempt of court by interfering with the pending judicial proceedings. The majority opinion concluded that the Committee's inquiry did not constitute contempt as it was not intended to interfere with the judicial process. The Committee's actions were seen as part of their duty to investigate malpractices within the Corporation. However, the dissenting opinion argued that the Committee's inquiry had a clear tendency to obstruct or interfere with the due process of justice, constituting contempt.

4. Appropriateness of Taking Contempt Proceedings Against the Appellants:
The majority opinion held that the appellants' conduct did not amount to real contempt of court, emphasizing that their actions were not intended to interfere with the course of justice. The dissenting opinion, however, viewed the appellants' actions as a serious contempt, arguing that the inquiry had a clear tendency to prejudice the fair hearing of the criminal proceedings.

5. Whether the Punishment Imposed on the Appellants Was Excessive:
The High Court had imposed a fine of Rs. 500 on each appellant, considering the contempt serious. The majority opinion, however, set aside the conviction and the fine, concluding that the appellants did not commit contempt. The dissenting opinion supported the High Court's decision, emphasizing the seriousness of the contempt and the appropriateness of the fine.

Conclusion:
The majority opinion allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction for contempt and ordering the refund of the fines if paid. The dissenting opinion upheld the High Court's conviction and fine, emphasizing the seriousness of the contempt.