9911796707
TMI Blog1940 (10) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by the drawer Niranjan Nath, whereas some others were not honoured at all. On 25th May 1940 Lala Radhey Lal filed an application in the Court of the insolvency Judge of Agra against Ram Chand Niranjan Nath through Niranjan Nath praying that the opposite party be declared insolvent and a receiver be appointed of his property and his estate be administered according to law. In this application Lala Radhey Lal makes mention of five hundis which came to be held in due course by Lala Radhey Lal the amounts of which hundis were not paid by Niranjan Nath. It was stated in para. 5: That the business of the opposite party failed and he suspended payment on or about Chait Sudi 5, Sambat 1997, corresponding to 11th April 1940, and has as a matter of fact given notice to his creditors that he cannot pay his debts for the last time again on or about the second week of May 1940. 2. In para. 6 it was said: That with the object of bringing pressure on the creditors the opposite party also gives out that he has transferred his property to his relations. The applicant does not admit this but in any view if there is any such transfer it is entirely bogus farzi and fraudulent. 3. Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to law. The City Magistrate issued a bailable warrant fixing 26th June 1940. The complainant was examined on 10th June 1940 on the back of the complaint and he corroborated the statements made in the complaint and said that his business had not failed at all and that he had given no notice of suspension of payment to his creditors, but that, as a matter of fact, the complainant had sent money to the accused after 11th April 1940 and had got receipts by him. The complainant further stated that he had been defamed in general because the accused person made the statement in the presence of people as well as spread it among people in various other ways and he therefore desired that the accused might be arrested by means of a warrant and punished. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the applicant that on 18th June 1940 the complainant Niranjan Nath applied for a search warrant for the seizure of the account books of Radhey Lal for the year 1996-97 and the books were actually seized on 20th June 1940, and later, on 22nd June 1940, Niranjan Nath submitted for the information of the criminal Court an application that the accused had defamed him not only in the complaint, but also on pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of Court. The contention of the opposite party is that they could not in any way prejudice a fair trial of the insolvency proceedings and that they were filed with the sole object of clearing his character and with that object alone the protection of the criminal Court was sought. 7. It cannot be doubted for a single moment that it is of great importance to the administration of justice that it should be allowed to take an unfettered course and not be sullied and besmirched in any manner. The essence of an offence of contempt of Court lies in the fact that the person complained of has done something which might have the effect of prejudicing the fair trial of a pending case. In Rajender Singh v. Uma Prasad ('35) 22 A.I.R. 1935 All. 117, a plaintiff after the settlement of issues gave notice to the defendant's guardian drawing attention to a certain plea taken in the written statement and alleged that the said plea was defamatory per se of the plaintiff's deceased father and. lowered his reputation in the estimation of his fellowmen and caused him harm in various ways and then added that unless within a week of the receipt of the notice an unqualified apology was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing. It was held that the plaintiff of the suit was not guilty of contempt of Court and it was observed by Bennet J., that a distinction was to be drawn between Rajender Singh v. Uma Prasad ('35) 22 A.I.R. 1935 All. 117 and the case before them because the notice in the former case required that the plea in the written statement was to be withdrawn, whereas in the case before them there was nothing in the notice asking that any action should be taken in the conduct of the civil suit and the notice was merely the usual notice which was given as a preliminary to filing a suit for damages for libel. In Mahomed Yusuf v. Initiyaz Ahmed ('39)26 A.I.R. 1939 Oudh 225 the facts were that one Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan filed a complaint under Section 500, I.P.C., against Nur Muhammad who was a prosecution witness in a case proceeding against Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan under Sections 420 and 406, I.P.C., and had made certain statements which might be said to be defamatory of Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan, and the question for consideration before the learned Judges was whether Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan was guilty of-contempt of Court where the proceedings under Sections 420 and 406, I.P.C., were pending. The complaina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich actuated the opposite party in filing this complaint when he did instead of waiting until the conclusion of the guardianship proceedings was to harass and handicap the applicant in those proceedings and so interfere with the administration of justice and whatever the opposite party's real motive might have been there was nothing in his action to suggest to the applicant that, if he withdrew any of his pleas regarding the opposite party's character, the latter would drop the complaint which he had preferred under Section 500, Penal Code. 10. We have considered with anxious care the circumstances under which Niranjan Nath filed his complaint under Section 500, Penal Code, against Radhey Lal and we have also taken account of the various steps which Niranjan Nath took in connexion with his complaint and we find that it would be fruitless to speculate into the motives of Niranjan Nath. Learned Counsel on his behalf has argued that Niranjan Nath was a military contractor and a man dealing in the business of books, and it was not expected that he should wait for the termination of the insolvency proceedings before he should seek the protection of the criminal Courts for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t pressure to bear upon him and therefore the case before us assumes a different aspect and the opposite party is guilty of contempt of Court. We did not intend to say that in every case where proceedings are intended to be taken against a person and if that person on coming to know of the intention holds out a threat that if such proceedings are taken he himself would take counter-proceedings to protect himself, the latter person is guilty of contempt of Court if both persons institute proceedings and Counter-proceedings. If when the earlier proceedings have been taken a threat is held out then to the person who institutes the proceedings by the opposite party to the effect that unless the proceedings are withdrawn drastic action would be taken, the holder of the threat would be guilty of contempt of Court; but where the threat is held out before the institution of the proceedings it amounts only to a warning so that an unguarded action may not be taken. We may well conceive of a contemplated action in the nature of a blackmail and it would be dangerous to hold that if the person attempted to be blackmailed were to hold out a counter-threat, he would be guilty of contempt of Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
