HARIDAS DAS AND ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 16-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
'1 S:C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
237 
HARIDAS DAS AND ANR. 
v. 
STA TE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
[A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, 
JJ.] 
Penal Code-Bringing a false charge of a commission of 
an offence-The offence charged need not be a crimi.,a! 
offence-It may be an offence under a special !aw like Con-
tempt of Court Act-Whether a proceedi."g under Contempt 
Court Act a criminal proceeding-Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 
of 1860), ss. 40, 41 and 211. 
The appellants were ordered to be proceeded against 
und:er ss. 193, 199 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They 
apvealed to this Court against that order under certificate 
granted under Art. 134(1) (c) of the Constitution. 
It was contended before this Court that for a person to 
be charged and Vied under s. 211 Penal Code he must either 
have instituted a criminal proceeding or caused such proceed-
ing to be instituted or he must have falsely charged a person 
with having committed a criminal offence and since what the 
appellants did was to initiate a proceeding for committal for 
contempt of court they cannot be proceeded against under 
s. 211 Penal Code. 
Held: (per Sarkar, J.) Assuming that a proceeding for 
committal for contempt of court is not a criminal proceeding 
within the meaning of s. 211 Penal Code, falsely charging a 
person with commission of an offence would be an offence 
under that section. When that section .says that an offence 
under it may be committed by falsely charging a person with 
the commission of an offence it does not intend that the offence 
must be one whiCh gives rise to a criminal proceeding. Offence 
is defined by s. 40 of the Penal Code meaning an offence under 
the Code or under any special law and taking the definition 
of the special law contained in s. 41 as meaning a law appli-
cable to particular subject it will be seen that an offence 
under Contempt of Court Act is an offence within the ambit 
of s. 211. The appellants have by falsely bring a cHarge of 
Contempt of Court made themselves liable to be prcceeded 
against under s. 211 Penal Code. 
Empress v. Jamoona, (1881) I.L.R. 6 Cal. 620, Karim Buksh 
v. Queen Empress, (1890) I.L.R. 17 Cal. 574 and Queen Empress 
v. Karigowda, (1895) I.L.R. 19 Bombay 51, distinguished. 
(per Hidayatullah, J.}: There can be no doubt that the 
institution of contempt of court proceedings is institution of 
criminal proceedings because a contempt of court can be 
punished by imprisonment and fine and that brings an accu-
sation charging a man with contempt of court within the ex-
pression "cri'!)inal proceedngs" in s. 211 Penal Code. Such pro-
ce<;dings we~e described . as quasi 
~riminal proceedings by 
Privy ~o:unc1l because with proceedmgs are not tried under 
the Cnmmal Procedure Code. That Code is not exhaustive of 
criminal proceedings and punishments of contempt by sum-
mary proce~ure bef!'re the superior courts are special crimi-
nal proceedmgs which the Code of Criminal Procedure does 
1961 
MarcA 16 
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964) 
1961 
not even regulate. The High Court has therefore acted with 
B 
"da -dA jurisdiction to order a prosecution under s. 211 Pl'!nal Code. 
an a Das an 
nr. 
v. 
(per Mudholkar, J.): Making a false charge before any 
S1a1e of w .. i Bengal person, whosoever he may be is covered by s. 499 Indian Penal 
untl Others 
Code. Section 211 Indian Penal Code is applicable to a case 
where a false charge is made by the accused person against 
another before a person competent to enquire into it and 
either take proceedings himself or cause proceedings to be ini-
tiated. It is not limited to false charges made to a person who-
also has the power to try the accused or commit him for trial 
by other court. 
8arkar,J. 
(iil It would not be right to read the words or "falsely 
charges" as being in any way restricted by the words "insti-
tute or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding". The 
Legislature has clearly prpvided for two kinds of acts, one 
the institution of proceedings and the other of making a false 
charge and there is no compelling reason for reading the sec-
tion as if it is limited to institution of a complaint upon a false 
charge. 
(iii) The word offence under s. 211 would also include 
a thing punishable under a special law and the law of con-
tempt being a special law an offence under Contempt of Court 
Act wou!CI be an offence under s. 211 and therefore th» order 
of the High Court was right. 
CRIMINAL APPE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.