BRAJNANDAN SINHA versus JYOTI NARAIN

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 955 · Decided: 08-11-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
BRAJNANDAN SINHA 
v. 
JYOTI NARAIN. 
955 
[BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.] 
Public 
Servants 
(Inquiries) Act, 1850 (XXXVII of 1850)-A 
Commissioner appointed thereunder-Whethef a court within the 
meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (XXXII of 1952). 
Held, that a Commissioner appointed under the Public Servants 
(Inquiries) Act, 1850 (XXXVII of 1850) is not a court within the 
meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (XXXII of 1952). 
Shell Co. of Australia v. Federal 
Commissioner of Taxation 
([1931] A.C.275),Huddart,Parker&Co. v. Moordead([1909] 8C.L. 
330) Rex v. Electricity Commissioners ( [ 1924 J 1 K.B. 171 ), Bharat 
Bank Limited v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd. ([1950] S.C.R. 459), 
Maqbool Hussain v. The State of Bombay ([1953] S.C.R. 730), Cooper 
v. Wilson ([1937] 2 K.B. 309), S.A. Venkataraman v. The Union of 
India and Another ( [ 1954 l S.C.R. 1150), Royal Aquarium and Sum-
mer and Winter Garden Society Ltd. v. Parkinson ([1892] 1 Q.B. 
431), Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby ([1873] L.R. 8 Q.B. 255), Kapur Singh 
v. fagat Narain (A.LR. 1951 Punjab 49) and M. V. Raiwade v. Dr. 
S. M. Hassan, (A.LR. 1954 Nag. 71), referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 25 of 1954. 
Appeal under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitu-
tion from the judgment and order dated the 12th 
January 1954 of the Patna High Court in Criminal 
Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 1953. 
M. 
C. Setalvad, 
Attorney-General of 
India 
and 
Mahabir Prasad, Advocate-General of Bihar (Balbhadra 
Prasad Sinha and P. G. Gokhale, with them) for the 
appellant. 
Purshottam Trikamdas, 
(R. 
Patnaik, 
with him) 
for the respondent. 
1955. November 8. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
BttAGWATI J.-This appeal 
with 
certificate under 
article 134( 1) ( c) 
of the Constitution arises out of an 
application under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts 
6-85 S. C. India/59 
1955 
NoD1mb1r 8. 
1955 
Brqjnandon Sillho 
v. 
Jyoti Narain 
BhagwatiJ. 
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
{1955) 
Act (XXXII of 1952) and section 8 of the Public 
Servants 
(Inquiries) 
Act 
(XXXVII 
of 
1850) 
read 
with article 227 of the Constitution filed by the res-
pondent against the appellant in the High Court of 
Judicature at Patna and raises an importl\Ilt question 
as to whether the Commissioner appointed under Act 
XXXVII of 1850 is a Court. 
The respondent is a Member of the Bihar Civil Ser-
vice (Executive 
Branch). The State Government re-
ceived reports to the effect that the respondent had 
been guilty of 
serious 
misconduct and corrupt prac-
tices in the discharge of his official duties while em-
ployed as Sub-Divisional Officer at Aurangabad and 
they accordingly decided that an inquiry into the 
truth of the various charges against him should be 
made under the 
provisions 
of 
the Public Servants 
(Inquiries) Act, 1850 (Act XXXVII of 1850, herein-
after referred to as the Act) and Mr. Anjani Kumar 
Saran who was the then Additional District and Ses-
sions Judge, Gaya, and was thereafter the District and 
Sessions Judge of that place was appointed Commis-
sioner under the Act for making the inquiry. Gaya 
was fixed as the venue of the inquiry and the State 
Government also ordered 
that, 
during the 
pendency 
of the inquiry, the respondent will remain under sus-
pension. 
The Government 
made the appointment 
aforesaid after obtaining the concurrence of the High 
Court on its 
administrative side which was obtained 
on the 
condition 
that an extra-temporary 
post of 
Additional District and Sessions 
Judge 
was 
created 
by the Government for the period Mr. Saran was 
occupied with the 
inquiry. 
The appointment was 
made on the 2nd June 1952 and it was expected that 
Mr. Saran would be 
able 
to complete the inquiry 
during a period of three months. The respondent, 
however, adopted dilatory tactics. He made various 
representations to the Government, one on the 6th 
June 1952 demanding that a Judge of the High Court 
be appointed as Commissioner under the Act to make 
the inquiry against him and that inquiry be made at 
Patna and not at Gaya, another on the 10th July 
1952 protesting agaimt the appointment of Mr. Saran 
2S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
957 
as Commissioner to hold the inquiry against him and 
demanding that a confirmed 
District and Sessions 
Judge be appointed as Commissioner in his place, and 
a third on the 17th November 1952 in which he 
requested the Government to appoi

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