DIBAKAH SATPATHY versus HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 14-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I96z 
326 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
DIBAKAH SATPATHY 
v. 
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES 
OF THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA 
(K. SUBBA RAO, BAGHUBAR DAYAL and 
J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Contempt of Court-Circular directing magistrates to ignore 
decision of High Court-If amounts to contempt. 
The appellant, an Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue, 
circulated to the District Magistrates, the opinions· of the:Legal 
Remembrancer and the Advocate General with an endorsement 
directing that a procedure contrary to that indicated by the 
High Court, be followed "until the matter is carried to the High 
Court in some case, so that the confusion created by the Orissa 
High Court decision A.LR. 1951 Orissa 40 might be set at 
rest". 
Held, that the appellant was clearly guilty of contempt of 
Court. He gave a direction to the Magistrates to ignore the 
decision of the High Court even though that was binding on 
them. This was a flagrant interference with the administration 
of justice by courts. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
,JumSDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 2 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave .from the judgment and 
order dated ]'ebruary 19, 1958, of the Orissa High 
Court in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 8of1957. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, H. R. Khanna and T. M. 
Sen, for the appellant. 
H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, 
B. M. Patnaik, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and 
Rameshwar Nath, for respondent No. 1. 
1961. March 14. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Mudholkar J. 
MuDHOLKAR, J.-The appellant who, at the relevant 
time, was Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue, 
Orissa, has been admonished for contempt of court 
and directed to pay the costs of the proceedings before 
the High Court of Orissa. The occasion for the institu-
tion of contempt proceedings against the appellant 
,. 
••• 
• 
.. 
• 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
327 
was the circulation of the view of the Legal Remembr-
i96z 
· ancer and the Advocate-General to the District D.b k -
5 tp th 
f h N 
h 
D, ' ' 
f 0 ' 
d t d ' a "' 
a a y 
Magistrates o t e 
ort ern 
iv1s10n o 
nssa 
a e 
v. 
January 19, 1955, in which the following endorsement 
Hon'ble The 
appears: 
Chief Justice & 
"I am directed to enclose copies of the opinions Judg" 01 the 
of the Legal Remembrancer and of the Advocate 
High Court of 
Orissa 
General and to say that the Law Department are of 
opinion that no special authorization is necessary to 
Mudholkar J, 
empower Magistrates to take cognizance under sec-
tion 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act. 
This may be 
followed until the matter is carried to the High 
Court in some case, so that the confusion created 
by the Orissa High Court decision reported in All 
India Reporter 1951 Orissa, page 40 might be set 
at rest." 
This endorsement bears the signature of the appellant. 
After the attention of the High Court was drawn: 
to the aforesaid endorsement it caused notices to be 
issued not only to the Under Secretary to the Board 
of Revenue but also to the Legal Remembrancer of 
Orissa to show cause way they should not be com-
mitted for contempt. Both of them showed cause. 
The High Court absolved the Legal Remembrancer 
but convicted the appellant and admonished him, as 
already stated. It may be mentioned that both of 
them had tendered apologies to the High Court. Even 
so, we think that the appellant was rightly found 
guilty of contempt of court and admonished as well as 
required to pay the costs of the proceedings . 
The point on which the opinion of the Legal Re-
membrancer was sought was whether a Magistrate 
authorised by the District Magistrate to take cogni-
sance of offences under s. 190, Code of Criminal Proce-
dure, can be regarded as a Magistrate authorised by 
the District Magistrate as contemplated by s. 20 of the 
Cattle Trespass Act. In the case referred to in the 
endorsement of the appellant, the Orissa High Court 
had taken the view following the decision in Raghu 
Singh v. Abdul Wahab (')that authorisation is necessary. 
The decision in Raghu Singh v. Abdul Wahab (')was 
(r) (1896) !,L.R. 23 Cal. 442. 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
I90I 
_ 
dissented from in Budhan Mahto v. lssur Singh(') and 
Dibaliar Satpathy it does not appear that this fact was brought to the · 
v. 
notice of the Orissa High Court. The Legal Remembr-
Hon'ble The 
ancer to whom the matter was referred submitted a 
Chief justice 6-
h h 
d" 
Judges of the 
note w ic , accor mg to the High Court, was "some

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