LexBUNNA PRASAD AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--
-
,
A
BUNNA PRASAD AND ORS.
B
c
D
F
G
"
v.
THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
April 24, 1968
(S. M. SIKRI, J. M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.].
Contempt of Courts Ad, 1952, ss. 4 and 5-A.ccused app/yin11 to
Panchayat not to proceed Nith matter because of stay order 11ranted .by
High Court-No proper affidavit or other evidence to support appl1ca-
tion-Panchayat disbelieving applicant and continuing trial-If guilty of
contempt-Whether bound to adjourn for better proof.
M, an accused person in
centain proceedings
pending before
the
Nyaya Panchayat filed a petition under Art. 227 in the High Court and
obtained a stay of the proceedings 011 December 20, 1963. Thereafter
when the Panchayat met to proceed with the matter, be made an appli-
cation supported by a document purporting to be an affidavit stating that
the High Court had admitted his writ petition and had stayed further
proceedings before the Panchayat; and that therefore nothing further
should be don.e in the matter. However, the, Panchayat did not allow
his application and proceeded <to hold M and others guilty and imposing
fines on them.
M, thereafter filed an applioation under ss. 4 and 5 of the Contempt
of C-Ourts Act, 1952, alleging contempt of the High C-Ourt by the Pan"
chayat. An affidavit filed before the High Court by the Sarpanch stated
that the document filed by M, by way of an affidavit in support of his
application had not been verified by any proper authority and . for this
and other reasons the Panchayat did not believe that the High Court had
stayed the proceedings.
The High Court held the members of the Pan-
chayat guilty of contempt and observed that if they wanted to ascertain-
the matter, they should have at best stayed the proceedings for a short
while and asked the applicant to produce a certified copy of the stay
order; in not doing so. the Panchas had obviously not acted bona fide and
their action amounted to wilful disobedience of the High Court's order.
On appeal to this Court,
HELD : The appeal must be allowed and the judgment and order of
the High Court set aside.
The only material before the Panchayat was the
application
dated
December 25, 1963. which was not supported by ·any affidavit sworn to
before a pe.rson authorised to administer oaths.
Further, the application
did not contain the date of the order; even a copy of the telegram stated
to have been setl.t by M's advocate in the High Court was not attached
to the application. On this material the hona {ides of the Panchas could
not be doubted if they refused to accept the mere statement of the party
that the High Court had stayed the proceedings before them. In such
matters those· who assert that a person had knowledge of the order must
prove this fact beyond all reasonable doubt.
If there is any doubt. the
benefit ought to be given to 4he person charged with contempt of court.
(120 F-H; 121 A-BJ
H
It is trne that in certain cases proceedings can be adjourned to enable
the parties to file better proof. but a judicial officer is not bound ito do
so and, if the bona fide does not in his discretion adjourn. proceedings,
it cannot be said that .he has committed contempt of court. [121 C-D]
•
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
• [1969) I S.C.R.
. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuR1so1cnoN: Criminal Appeal No.
112 of 1965.
:\Prcal by special leave from the jurisdiction and order dated
Apnl 29, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc.
Contempt Case No. 43 of .1965.
A. S. R. Chari, M. K. Ramamurthi, Vineet Kumar and
Shyamala Pappu, for the appe!lants.
0. P. Rana, for respondent No. J.
J. I'. Gova/, V. C. Prasar and S. P. Singh for respondent
No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
· Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court adjudging the five appel-
lants guilty of contempt of court and sentencing each of them to
pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further ordering that in c<Lse of
default they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks.
The High Court held that the five appellants had
disobeyed an
order of stay passed by it staying proceedings pending before the
Nyaya Panchayat, Jokha Khas, District Deoria.
The relevant facts arc these. On September 2, 1963. Yashoda,
son of Raj Kumar, filed a complaint before the Nyaya Panchayat,
Jokha Khas, against Jagdeo. Mahabir and Laxmi alleging that
he had been abused and belaboured and his property worth
Rs. 4Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.