LexDEBABRATA BANDOPADHYAY versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DEllAllRATA BANDOPADHYAY
THE STATE ())-' WEST BE!'iGAL & A!"iR.
July 2, 1968
1:\1. HIDAYAT!JLLAll, C.J., V. RAMASWAMI AND
C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.]
Contrn1pt of Court-Sessions Judge dircctin.£! i11 "ppra/ under s. 520
Cr. P.L'. that n1011cy in dcpo.rit in court be pc.id to <1cc11scd on his execut-
A
B
ing bond to satisfaction of Dislrict Magistrate-Bone/ ex<'cutcd in for111
of indt•11111ity bond in favour of State Gover111ne111-Acct'ptrd bv Adtli-
tional Di\·trict Ma{?isrrare-Acceptance of bond in such fonn and ·hv sur.lz
authori1y
whrther
com1it111ed co111rmpt of coun of Se.ui011.1• Ji1d~c-
C
Delay iu trans1nissio11 of orders of suprrior
cour1s-fVhc11
conltiturrs
conte111pt.
S \vho \Va.-; Suh-Agent of a Pho:;patc companv ,,·:is convicted for a
contravention of the Fcniliscr Control
Order real! v•ith s.
7( 1) of the
Essential Commoditie, AC'!.
The fertiliser seized during invc,tigation
was sold by the ordi:r of th:! Court anJ the sale p·roeecd1; held in deposit.
·rhc trial f\1agistratc ordered the fertiliser to he returned to the comrany
hut S filed ~1n appeal und~r c;. 520 of the Code of Crin1inal Procedure and
on Deccn1hcr 23. 1963 the
Sc~sions Judj!e directed 1he
!Vl<'lgislr;'tte to
deliver the amount to S upon hi<i furnishing s·.:curitv and executing a
hond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate.
On January 3, 1964
S pro<lucc<l a certific{I copy of thi1; order and a<;kcd hi he allo\vc<l to take
out the ~1mount and furnish-:d a hond.
The f\1al:!i'tr;itc recomn1endcd its
acceptance and it was then accepted bv the Addi!.io11~1l District ~fagisirate.
()n Janu;i'ry 11. 1964 the ~·L1gistratc directed the issuance of a pav order.
S received it on the 1;amc day and deposited it \Vith hi1; bankers on January
13.
The Con1panv mcan\vhilc had filed a
rcvi~;ion petition before the
lligh Court and as.kcd the Sessions Judge to stay hi~ order of J)c;.~n1her
2.3, 1963. l'hc Sessions Judge pas1;cd an vrdcr of st:iy on J~1nuarv 14.
1964 ,,·hich \Vas received in the District ~1agi.<.trale's office on
J;.i.nuarv
16. 1964.
Even ;1ftcr the n:ccipt of that order in the District \L.1~istratc's
office a comn1unication \\las sent to the trial n1agi~tral-: on :!0th J;inu:iry.
1964 directing him to carry out the Sessions Judge's order datc(l Dcccm-
hcr 2~. t963.
'fhe High Court charged the District \1;1gi.;,tral·_· and other
appellants for contempt and held that contempt· of the. <:our! of the
Session" Judge had hcen commilled h:!causc: (a) 'fh~ f\1~1g1.<.tr;1tc accepted
S's bond v.·tiich \\·as not in proper forn1 an<l thus failed lo c:i'rrv ou1 the
Sessions Judi;e's or<lL·r of J)cccmbcr 23. 1963: (h) ·rhc hn11U wa" acc·.:ri1cd
hy the Addition;il l)istrict }.1;1[!i"trate \Vh~rc:~". th~ Sc"sions. Jt~dce
h'.1d
ordcT'.!d that the bond should he to the .<.a1Isfact1on of the. D1.s1nct !\1:1g1~
trate; (c) The District
J\1;1gis1ratc directed that
thL·
s~'"l~n:-. Judgc.s
order of Dccemhcr 23. 1963 he c;11Tied out although the Scss1or:is J111J~;c s
stay order had hcen rcc.eived in hi" office before 1h:1t. . The Hi.ch Coyrt
held that there had hccn gross delay in th-~ co01:n1u.n1~1llon. antl cxccut10.n
of the o'rders of the superior court.:; hv the D1:-.tnct I\1og1stratc and h15
, 0 hordin:ites and th:11 there \\';i'i a \\'ell-knit con:-µi:-:-icv. to oav the amn.1;nt
in deposit tn S in defiance of the orders or the .<.upcnor court.s.
Again~!
their conviction by the High (:ourt the appcllan~'S can1c to th1<.. Court.
HFLD: (i) Th:rc is nothing in "· "17 (;rin1i11.1l
Prna..·dure
.<~0clc
v.·hich excluded the u-.c of .in 1nden1nity f">\)nd such .1s ''"'s execu1..:d 1n tl~c
case
The Sessions Judge dtd not 01der th.11 the hond ~houhl he t;1kcn 111
D
E
F
G
I(
-
..
..
A
B
c
D
E
F
DEBABRATA V. WEST BENGAL (Hidayatuiiah, C.J.)
305
the name of Jny particular court.
A bond in the name of the Govern~
mcnt of West Bengal substantially compl;od with the order of the Sessions
Judge as it could be enforced against S without any trouble [308 F-G]
(ii) Jn holding that the District Magistrate alone could accept
the
bond the High Court ignored th·o powers of the
Additional
District
Magistrate unde'r the Code of Criminal Procedure. The practice of courts
in Bengal is also against the proposition because such bonds are usually
considered for acceptance by the
Additional District
Magistrate [308
G-H]
(iii) The High Court went wrong in holding that there was a conspiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.