ABDUL KARIM versus M. K. PRAKASH AND ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 30-01-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
276 
ABDUL KARIM 
v. 
M. K. PRAKASH AND ORS. 
January 30, 1976 
fM. H. BEG, P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court's Act 1971-Sec. 2(c)-Standard of proof for Criminal 
contempt-Contempt by a iudicial officer-Assumption-If should be wilful of 
jurisdiction erroneously or passing a wrong order. 
The appellants in Criminal Appeals 195 and 196 are the owner and Manager 
of a timber depot respectively (hereinafter referred to as appellants). 
Appel-
lants complained to the Police that Respondent No. 1 had collected a 
large 
number of persons with deadly \.veapons and that the sheds constructed by the 
appellants were attacked and that there was apprehe_nsion that the shed would 
be demolished. 
The Police seized the- disputed timber. 
The appellants made 
an application praying that the seized logs may be handed over to them. 
Res-
pondent No. 1 also made an application claiming the timber to be his property. 
After perusing the Police Report and bearing the counsel for the claimants, 
the Magistrate directed the Forest Range Officer to keep the timber in 
his 
custody pending the further investigation by the Police. 
Respondent No. l 
filed a Revision in the High Court against the said order of the Magistrate. 
The High Court did not grant stay of the order of the Magistrate. 
The High 
Court, however, observed that as the rainy season was approaching it 'vas 
necessary that the timber should be removed from the place as early as possi-
ble. 
Thereafter, the Police Officer submitted the final report stating that the 
earlier Police report was biased and that thi appellants were the owners of the 
disputed timber and that the timber might be relensed to them. 
On that the 
Magistrate passed an order directing that the timber should be returned to the 
appellants. 
The Magistrate also issued a letter to the Forest Range Officer 
directing him to hand over the seized timber to the appellants, urgently. 
Respondent No. 1 filed a contempt petition in the High Court against the 
appellants, as well as against the appellant in Appeal No. 118 of 1971, the 
Magistrate. 
The charge against the Magistrate was that he passed the second 
order without giving notice to respondent No. 1 and directed the Forest Range 
Officer to release the timber urgently and thereby defeated whatever order the 
High Court might have finally passed in revision and that he permitted process 
of the court to be abused and that he impeded the course of justice. The 
Magistrate filed his affidavit and stated that the High Court had not stayed 
his order and that he ordered the delivery of the disputed timber in the bona 
fide discharge of his official duty after accepting in good faith the final report 
made by the Police in which it was indicated that its notice had been given to 
the complainant and a copy of such notice was also enclosed. 
The High Court did not find the appellants guilty of contempt. The High 
Court, however, found the Magistrate guilty of 'Criminal contempt' on the fol-
G 
lowing grounds : 
H 
1. The case between the parties had gained notoriety in the State and 
attracted a good deal of public attention. 
2. The certified copy of the order was taken only by appellant No. 1, and 
since the case was not posted in the open court, appellant No. 1 must 
have shown the order to the Magistrate at a place other than the open 
court. 
3. The Magistrate passed the order in spite of the fact that he was aware 
that the revision application was pending in the High Court which was 
seized of the matter of determining the question of the custody of the 
timber. 
I 
-
• 
ABDUL KARIM V. M. K. PRAKASH 
277 
4. The Magistrate did not give notice to the other side before passing the 
order. The procedure adopted by the Magistrate in writing the letter 
to the Forest Range Officer asking him to release the timber urgently 
is very strange and reveals an anxiety on the part of the Magistrate t~ 
help the appellants. 
The urgency can only be to circumvent any poss1~ 
ble orders of stay that might be passed by the High Court. 
In appeal filed by the Magistrate. 
HELD: (!) Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 codifies the 
definition of criminal contempt which had previously been crystalized by judicial 
decisions. 
The broad test to be applied in such cases is whether the act com~ 
plained of \Vas calculated to obstruct or had an intrinsic tendency to interfere 
with the course of justice and the due admini

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.