1976 (1) TMI 180 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Magistrate (R-3) committed contempt of court by passing an order for the delivery of timber logs to R-1 without issuing notice to 'P' and while a criminal revision petition was pending in the High Court.
2. Whether the actions of R-1, R-2, and R-4 constituted contempt of court.

Summary:

Issue 1: Contempt of Court by Magistrate (R-3)
The High Court found the Magistrate (R-3) guilty of contempt for passing an order on September 26, 1969, directing the urgent delivery of timber logs to R-1 without issuing notice to 'P' and while a criminal revision petition was pending. The High Court's judgment was influenced by the notoriety of the case and allegations of favoritism by a Minister. The High Court inferred that R-3 permitted R-1 and R-2 to influence him and acted with an ulterior motive to circumvent potential High Court orders.

The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court's judgment was based on vague and indefinite circumstances. The Magistrate's explanation that he acted in good faith, based on the High Court's order dated May 2, 1969, which emphasized the need for speedy removal of timber, was sufficient to dispel suspicion of improper motives. The Supreme Court held that the Magistrate's actions, although imprudent, were not deliberate or contumacious. The Magistrate's conviction and sentence for contempt were set aside, and his appeal was allowed.

Issue 2: Actions of R-1, R-2, and R-4
The High Court did not record any conviction for contempt of court against R-1, R-2, and R-4. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court made sweeping observations regarding the civil rights of R-1 and R-2, which might prejudice their claims in a regular suit. The Supreme Court directed that these observations should not be taken into account by any court adjudicating the timber dispute. Similarly, adverse remarks against the Police officer (R-4) should not be considered conclusive regarding his conduct in handling the case. The appeals by R-1 and R-2 were dismissed with these observations.

Conclusion:
Criminal Appeal 118 of 1971 was allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the Magistrate (R-3). Criminal Appeals 195 and 196 of 1971 were dismissed, with observations to ensure fair adjudication of civil rights and conduct.