RIZWAN-UL-HASAN AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 581 · Decided: 05-02-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. • 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME ootJ:R•r REPORTS 
58i 
"Any dispute or difference arising out of the con-
1953 
tract shall be referred to the arbitration of the officer G 
El t . 
sanctioning the con tract whose decision shall be final su::l~ 00~" ~~d. 
and binding." 
• 
v. ' 
It is obvious that these decisions could have no 
The State of 
relevance to the arbitration clause as drawn up in the 
Bihar. 
present case. If the nature of the claim is as we 
Mahajo.n J. 
have indicated above, it seems plain that it does not 
come within the scope of the submission. 
In our judgment, therefore, the decision of the 
learned Subordinate Judge was right and the Judges 
of the High Court were in error in reversing it. 
In 
the result the only course open to us is to allow the 
appeal with costs and to say that the plaintiff's claim 
is not within the scope of the submission and that 
the petition under section 34 was rightly dismissed by 
the Subordinate Judge. 
Agent for the appellants : 
Agent for the respondent : 
Appeal allowed. 
Raj inder Narain. 
P. K. Chatterji. 
RIZWAN-UL-HASAN AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE STATE OF UT'rAR PRADESH. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and DAs JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act (XII of 1926), s. 3-Proceedings before 
Sub-Divisional Magistrate-Application by respondents to District 
Magistrate containing allegations against trying Magistrate and the 
bona fides of the pending proceedings-Transmission of application 
to Sub-Divisional Magistrate for report-Whether amounts to 
contempt of Court-Question of prejudice . 
. The jurisdiction in contempt of court is not to be invoked 
unless tbere is real prejudice which can be regarded as a sub-
stantial interference with the due course of justice. 
The purport 
of the court's action is a practical purpose and the Court will not 
exercise its jurisdiction upon a mere question of propriety. 
During the pendency of pi·oceedings against A and B under 
s. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, in the court of a Sub-Divisional 
Magistrate, A and B made an application to the District Magis-
trate alleging that the proceedings were not bona fide and 
1953 
Feb. 5. 
' 582. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1953] 
1953 
containing statements in the nature of a countercharge. The 2nd 
appellant who was then officiating as the District l\fagistrate sent 
Ril!!wan-ul-
this application to the Sub-Divisional l\iagistrate for report and 
Hasan 
on reeeiving a report from him' that A and B should be asked to 
and Anothl!r 
file a formal complaint before· him, advised them to do so. 
A 
v. 
brother of A sent a similar petition to the District l\Iagistrate 
Th~ State of containing also allegations· against the trying "Th-fagistrate. 
The 
Uttar P1·adesh. 1st appellant, who was the District Magistrate, forwarded them 
to the Sub-Divisional l\1agistrate for report, itnd on receiving his 
'report passed an order that he saw' no reason to withdraw the file 
from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The High Court of Allahabad 
held that as the applications contained allegations which might 
interfere with the course of tbe trial of the proceedings under 
s. 145, in transmitting the applications the appellants had acted 
without due circumspection and thought though they had no in-
tention to influence the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the appel-
lants were therefore guilty of contempt of court: 
Held, (i) that in transmitting the applications received by 
them to the Sub-Divisional l\fagistrate and calling for a report the 
appellants were not in any way iiiterfering with the course of 
justice but were only doing their duty as superior officers.; 
(ii) it was not possible to hold that any prejudice had.been 
caused by the two applications being sent by the appellants to the 
Sub-Divisional l\iagistrate or that any action was necessary to 
protect the Sub-Divisional I\iagistrate ~who was hearing the case 
and the appellants were not guilty of any contempt of court. 
Anantalal Singha v. Alfred Henry Watson([l931] I.L.R.58 
Cal. 884) referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JurusDIOTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 79of1952. Appeal by special leave from 
a Judgment and Order dated 16th April, 1951, of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Dayal and 
Desai JJ.) in Criminal MiscellaneousNo.17 of 1950. 
K. S. Krishnaswami Iyengar (K. B. Asthana, with 
him) for the appellants. 
N. G. Sen for the respondent. 
1953. 
February 5. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
MAHAJAN J.-This is an appeal by special leave 
from the judgment and orde

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