K. SHAMRAO AND ORS. versus ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 523 · Decided: 04-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

K. SHAMRAO AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
ASSIST ANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER 
MARCH 4, 2003 
. [Y.K. SABHARWAL' AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950-Section 5-Assistant Charity 
Commissioner appointed thereunder-Whether 'Court' for the purposes of 
Sections 2 and 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 197 I-Held, yes since it C 
possesses all the attributes of a Court-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 
2 and 3. 
Respondent-Assistant Charity Commissioner was a serving judicial 
officer of State Judicial Services whose services had been placed at the 
disposal of the Government to be appointed as an Assistant Charity D 
Commissioner under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1951. 
Appellants published certain items in their newspaper whicn were 
said to be scandalous and intended to interfere with the administration of 
justice. Contempt proceedings were initiated against them on reference E 
made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Appellants took a 
preliminary objection that the Assistant Charity Commissioner is not a 
"court" thus, contempt action could not be initiated against them. High 
Court overruled ttie objection and held that the Assistant Charity 
Commissioner under the Act is a "court" within the meaning of Sections 
2 and 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Hence the present appeal. F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The scheme of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, the 
powers conferred on the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the 
provisions of the Act clearly show that the Assistant Charity Commissioner G 
has to be a judicial officer or an officer with a legal background; has to 
hear parties wherever dispute is raised with regard to existence of a public 
trust or with regard to a property being trust property or otherwise and 
then give a definitive judgment after taking evidence having regard to the 
facts of the case and by application of law. The judgment is final unless H 
523 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A interfered with in appeal or thereafter tested in appeal before the-High 
Court. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been barred in the matters 
inquired into and decided by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. 
(5:!8-B-q 
1.2. The provisions make it clear that the Assistant Charity 
B Commissioner has not only the trapping of a judicial tribunal but also has 
power to give a decision or a definitive judgment which has finality and 
authoritativeness which are essential tests of a judicial pronouncement. 
The Assistant Charity Commissioner, therefore, possesses all the attributes 
of a court. The fact that the Assistant Charity Commissioner has also to 
C perform some administrative functions is not of any relevance for coming 
to the conclusion that he is not a court, having regard to the provisions of 
the Act which substantially confer on him the power to give a definite 
judgment subject to finality in appeal, after hearing all concerned. 
Functions of the Assistant Charity Commissioner are predominantly 
adjudicatilry. The Assistant Charity Commissioner has almost all the 
D powers which an ordinary civil court has including power of summoning 
witnesses, compelling production of documents, examining witnesses on 
oath and coming to a definite conclusion on the evidence adduced and 
arguments submitted. Thus the Assistant Charity Commissioner is 11 Court 
for the purposes of Sections 2 and 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 
E 
[529-D-E-F) 
The Bharat Bank Ltd., New Delhi v. Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd, 
Delhi and Anr., [.1950) SCR 459; Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain, [1955) 
2 SCR 955; Shri Virindar Kumar Satyawadi v The State of Punjab, ( 1955) 2 
SCR 1013 and Thakur Juga/ Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative 
F Bank Ltd and Anr., (1967) 3 SCR 163, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1534 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.1992 of the Karnataka High 
G Court in Contempt of Court Case (Crl.) No. 4 of 1992. 
H 
Sanjiv Sen, R.N. Karanjawala, Mrs. Nandini Gore and Mrs. Manik 
Karanjawala, for the Appellants. 
Siddharth Dave, Satya Mitra and Sanjay R. Hegde, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.. , 
K. SHAMRAO v. ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER [Y.K. SABHARWAL] 525 
Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. Whether Assistant Charity Commissioner A 
appointed under Section 5 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short; 
the Act') as applicable to Karnataka is a 'cour

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