LexBATHINA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY versus THE STATE OF MADRAS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- ' ' S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 425 BATHINA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY v. THE STATE OF MADRAS. [PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, Muui:ERJEA, DAs and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR· JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act (XII of 1926), s. 2(3)-lndian Penal Code (XLV of 1860), s. 499-Contempt of subordinate Court-/uris- diction of High Court to take cognisance-Contempt punishable as defamation under Penal Code-Whether iurisdiction ousted-Scope and object of Contempt of Courts Act. Sub-sec. (3) of section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court to take cognisance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it only in cases where the acts alleged to consti- tute contempt are punishable as contempt under specific provi- sions of the Indian Penal Code, but not ·where these acts merely amount to offences of other description for which punishment has been provided for in the Indian Penal Code. The fact that defamation of a judge of a subordinate Court constitutes an offence under sec. 499 of the Indian Penal Code does 11ot, therefore, oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to take cognisance of the act as a contempt of court. Defamatory statements about the conduct of a judge even in respect of his judicial duties do not necessarily constitute con- tempt of Court. It is only when the defamation is calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of justice that it amounts to contempt. Kisan Krishna /i v. Nagpur Conference of Society of St. Vincent de Paul (A.I.R. 1943 Nag. 334) disapproved. V. M. Bason v. A. H. Skone (LL.R. 53 Cal. 401) explained. Subordinate fudge, First Class Hoshangabad v. /awaharlal (A.LR. 1940 Nag. 407)> Narayan Chandra v. Panchu Pramanick (A.LR. 1935 Cal. 684), Naresh Kumar v. Umaromal (A.LR. 1951 Cal. 489), Kaulashia v. Emperor (I.L.R. 12 Pat. 1), State v. Brahma Prakash (A.I.R. 1950 All. 556), Emperor v. /agannath (A.LR. 1938 All. 358), Bennet Colman v. C. S. Monga (I.L.R. 1937 Lah. 34) approved. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JurusDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1951. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras (Rajamannar C. J. and and Balakrishna Ayyar J.) dated 10th April, 1950, in Contempt Application No. IO of 1949. 1952 Feb. 14. 1952 Bathina Rama- krishna Reddy v. The State of Madras. Mukheriea /. 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] S. P. Sinha ( S. S. Prakasam, with him), for the appellant. R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the respondent. 1952. February 14. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MuKIIERJEA J.-This appeal has come up before us on special leave granted by this court on May 23, 1950, and it is directed against a judgment of a Divi- sion Bench of the Madras High Court dated April 1(}, 1950, by which the learned Judges found the appellant guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to serve simple imprisonment .for three months. The appellant is the publisher and managing editor of a Telugu Weekly known as "Praja. Rajyam" which is edited and published at Nellore in the State of Madras. In the issue of the said paper dated 10th February, 1949, an article appeared under the caption "Is the Sub-Magistrate, Kovvur, corrupt?" The pur- port of the article was that Surya Narayan Murthi, the stationary Sub-Magistrate of Kovvur, was known to the people of the locality to be a bribe taker and to be in the habit of harassing litigants in various ways. He was said to have a broker, through whom negotia- tions in connection with these corrupt practices were carried on. Several specific instances were cited of cases tried by that officer, where it was rumoured that he had either taken bribes or had put the parties to undue harassment, because they were obdurate enough to refuse the demands of his broker. The article, which is a short one, concludes with the foHowing paragraph:- "There are party factions in many villages in Kovvur Taluk. Taking advantage of those parties many wealthy persons make attempt to get the opposite party punished either by giving bribes or ma:king recommendations. To appoint Magistrates who run after parties for a Taluk like this .... is to betray the public. It is tantamount to failure of justice. Will the Collector enquire into the matter and allay the public of their fears?" ' . ~- ' . • ,. . - S.C.R.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.