IN RE HIRA LAL DIXIT AND TWO OTHERS versus -

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 01-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
677 
On a consideration of the relevant provisions of the 
Act and the rules and the arguments advanced before 
us we are of opinion that the appellant cannot in the 
circumstances of this case be held to be guilty of any 
corrupt practice under section 123(7) as alleged against 
him. It follows from this that pot having incurred any 
expenditure over and above what was shown by him in 
his return of 
election expenses he cannot be said to 
have concealed 
such 
expenditure and, 
therefore, he 
cannot be held to have been guilty of any minor corrupt 
practice under section 124(4) of the Act. In the view 
we have ·taken, namely, that these extra men were not 
employed or paid by 
the appellant, it is unnecessary, 
for the purpose of this appeal, to discuss the question 
whether, if one's own 
servants are also utilised or 
employed in the conduct of the 
election, their salary 
for the. period they are so utilised or employed should 
be regarded as election 
expenses and shown in the 
return. On that we prefer not to express any 
opm1on 
on this occasion. No other point having been raised we 
allow this appeal with costs. 
Appeal allowed. 
In re HIRA LAL DIXIT AND TWO OTHERS 
[MEHR CHAND 
MAHAJAN C. J., 
MuKHERJEA, 
S. R. DAs, VIVIAN 
BosE and GHULAM 
HASAN JJ.] 
Cont-;mpt of Court-Court hearing a case-Leaflet distributed 
by a party in 
Court premises 
during hearing-Language used-
Atfecting the 
fudges-Time and place of distribution-Hindering 
or obstructing due administration of justice. 
The petitioner was an applicant in one of the writ petitions 
which had been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the validity 
of U. P. Road J'ransport Act, 1951. 
During the hearing of the 
writ petitions a leaflet printed in the Hindi language and intituled 
"Our Transport Department" purporting to be 
written 
by 
the 
petitioner was distributed in the 
Court premises. 
The leaflet 
contained a graphic account of the harassment and indignity said 
to have been meted out to the writer by the State officers and the 
then State Minister of Transport in connection with the cancella-
tion and eventual restoration of his license in respect of a 
passenger bus. 
1954 
RanJJnjaya Singh 
v. 
Baijnath Singh 
and Others. 
Das]. 
1954 
Octob1r 1. 
1954 
In ;1 HirtJ Lal 
Dixit. 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
The second paragraph at page 15 of that leaflet contains a 
passage of which the following is the English translation : 
"The public has full and firm faith in the Supreme Court, but 
sources that are in the know say that the Government acts with 
partiality in the matter of appointment of those Hon'ble Judges as 
Ambassadors, Governors, High 
Comn1issioners, 
etc., who give 
judgments against Govern1nent but this has so far not made any 
difference in the firmness and justice of the Hon'ble Judges." 
Held, (1) that the offending passage and the time and place of 
its distribution tended to hinder or obstruct the due administration 
of justice and was a contempt of Court. 
(2) It was not fair com1nent on the proceedings 
but an 
attempt to prejudice the 
Court 
against the 
State and to sir up 
public feeling on the very question then pending for decision. The 
manner in which the leaflets were distributed, the language used 
in them and the timing of their publication could only have had 
one object, namely, to try and influence the Judges in favour of the 
petitioner and the others who were in the same position as himself. 
This again was clear conte1npt of the Supreme Court. 
(3) It is not necessary that there should in fact be an actual 
interference with the course of administration of justice but it is 
enough if the offending publication is likely or if it tends in any 
way to interfere 
\Vith the proper 
administration of law. 
Such 
insinuations as were implicit in the passage in 
question were 
derogatory to the dignity of the Court and were calculated to 
undermine the 
confidence of the 
people in the 
integrity of the 
Judges. 
Brahma Prakash Sharma and Others v. The 
State of Uttar 
Pradesh ((1953] S.C.R. 1169) referred to. 
ORIGINAL 
JurusDICTION : In 
the 
matter 
of 
the 
Contempt of Court proceedings relating to the printing, 
publishing and 
circulation 
of a pamphlet over the 
name 
of Hira 
Lal 
Dixit (General-Secretary, 
Praja 
Socialist Party, Mainpur) entitled "HAMARA VAHAN 
VIBHAG" arising 
out of (Civil) Petition No. 379 of 
1953. (Hira Lal Dixit 11. The State of Uttar 

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