1967 (3) TMI 109 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies was a court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.
2. Whether the Assistant Registrar was a court subordinate to the Patna High Court.
3. Whether the words used by the appellant in his grounds of appeal amounted to contempt of any court.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies was a court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952:
The court examined the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, focusing on the powers and functions of the Registrar and Assistant Registrar. The Act confers several judicial powers on the Registrar, such as summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, examining them upon oath, and compelling the production of documents, similar to those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Assistant Registrar, exercising these powers, was found to have the "trappings of a court" and was discharging functions and duties akin to those of a court of law. The court cited authoritative pronouncements and legal definitions, concluding that the Assistant Registrar, in adjudicating disputes under Section 48 of the Act, was indeed functioning as a court.

2. Whether the Assistant Registrar was a court subordinate to the Patna High Court:
The court analyzed the scope of judicial subordination under Article 227 of the Constitution, which grants High Courts superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction. The court rejected the argument that subordination under the Contempt of Courts Act should be limited to courts directly under the hierarchy of the Civil Procedure Code or Criminal Procedure Code. It emphasized that judicial subordination includes all courts and tribunals over which the High Court exercises control, thus concluding that the Assistant Registrar was a court subordinate to the Patna High Court.

3. Whether the words used by the appellant in his grounds of appeal amounted to contempt of any court:
The court examined the specific words used by the appellant, which accused the Assistant Registrar of acting "mala fide" and using "double standards." It referred to Halsbury's Laws of England, stating that any act or writing calculated to bring a court or a judge into contempt or lower their authority is considered contempt of court. The court found that the appellant's language was neither fair nor temperate nor made in good faith, and was aimed at discrediting the Assistant Registrar's judicial probity. Consequently, the court held that the appellant's words amounted to contempt of court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Assistant Registrar was functioning as a court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, and was subordinate to the Patna High Court. The appellant's words were deemed contemptuous, and the judgment of the Patna High Court finding the appellant guilty of contempt was upheld.