PUSHPABEN & ANR. versus NARANDAS V. BADIANI & ANR.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 636 · Decided: 29-03-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
636 
PUSHPABEN & ANR. 
v. 
NARANDAS V. BADIANI & ANR. 
March 29, 1979 
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act-Section 12(3)-Scope of-Sentence of inipri.ron-
ment-When should be awarded in civil contempt. 
Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint under s. 420 IPC against the appellants 
alleging that a loan taken by them from him had not been repaid. \Vhile 
the complaint was pending before a Magistrate the parties entered into a com-
promise under 
which the appellants undertook to repay the loan before a 
stipulated date. The Magistrate accordingly allowed the parties to compound 
the case. 
When the appellants failed to repay the loan in accordance with the under-
taking given before the Magistrate the respondent moved the High Court for 
taking action against the appell&nts for contempt of court. On the view that 
the appellants had committed a wilful disobedience Of the undertaking the High 
Court held that they were guilty of civil contempt and sentenced them to one 
month's simple imprisonment. 
Allowing the appeal in part, 
HELD : I. The appellants had committed wilful disobedience of the court 
• 
E 
of the Magistrate by committing serious breach of the undertaking given to 
it on the basis of which alone they had been acquitted. The High Court was, 
therefore, right in holding that the appellants were guilty of civil contempt 
under s. 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. [638 Al 
G 
2. Having regard to the circumstances of the case the present case falls 
.J 
within the first part of s. 12(3) of the Act and a sentence of fine alone should 
have been awarded by the High Court. By enacting the section the legislature 
intended that a sentence of fine alone should be imposed in normal circum-
stances. 
Special power is, however, conferred on the court to pass a sentence 
')':~ 
of imprisonment 
if it thought that ends of justice so required. Therefore, 
~fore a court passed a sentence of imprisonment it must give special reasorui 
for passing such a sentence. [638 G] 
In the present case there are no special reasons why the appe11ants should 
be sent to jail. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 
1975. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9-1-1973 of the Bombay High 
, 
H 
Court in Criminal Application No. 681/72. 
V. S. DeJaz, P. H. Parekh, C. B. Singh, M. Mudgol, B. L. Ve111ia 
and J. C. Rajani, for the Appellants. 
• 
•• 
PUSHPABEN v. NARANDAS (Fazal Ali, J.) 
637 
M. N. Shroff for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F AZAL Au, J .-This is an appeal under s. 19 of the Contempt of 
Courts Act (hereinafter called the Act) against an order of the High 
Court of Bombay convicting the appellants for a Civil Contempt and 
sentencing th(m to one month's simple imprisonment. The facts of the 
case have been fully detailed by the High Court and it is not necessary 
for us to reprnt the same all over again. It appears that Respondent 
No. 1 had gi~cn a loan of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellants on certain 
conditions. Somehow or other, the loan could not be paid by the 
appellants as a result of which Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint 
under S. 420 I.P.C. against the appellants. While the complaint was 
pending before the Court of the Magistrate, the parties entered into 
a compromise on 22-7-1971 under which the appellants undertook 
to pay the loan of Rs. 50,000/- with simple interest@ 12% per annum 
on or hefore 21-7-1972. An application was filed before the Court for 
allowing the parties to compound the case and acquit the accused. The 
Court after hearing the parties, passed the following order :-
"The accused given an undertaking to the court that 
he shall repay the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant 
·.1 
on or before 21-7-1972 with interest as mentioned on the 
reverse. In view of the undertaking, I permit the compro-
mise and acquit the accused". 
It is obvious, therefore, that the Court permitted the parties to 
compound the case only because of the undertaking given by the 
appellants. 
Thereal'tcr, it apears, that the undertaking was violated and the 
amount of loan was not paid to the Respondent No. 1 at all. The res-
• 
,~ pendent, therefore, moved the High Court for taking action for con-
_., 
tempt of Court against the appellants as a result of which the present 
proceedings were taken against them. 
The High Court came to the 
conclusion that the appellants had co=itted a wilful disobedience of 
the undertaking give

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