SAIBAL KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS versus B. K.SEN AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 460 · Decided: 13-01-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

460 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
SAIBAL KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS 
v. 
B. K.·SEN AND ANOTHER. 
(JAFER IMAM; K. SuBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR 
DAYAL, JJ.) 
Contempt of Court-Special Committee appointed by Corpora-
tion to enquire as to conduct of employees-Issue of questionnaire to 
Commissioner-Pendency of Criminal proceedings in Court-Com-
mittee, if functioned as parallel Coi;rt of enquiry-Members, if guilty 
of contempt. 
The first respondent, the then Commissioner of the Corpora-
tion of Calcutta, was after a protracted trial for an alleged offence 
umler s. 497 of the Indian Penal Code discharged by the Magis-
trate under s. 253(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The 
Sessions Judge, on a petition in revision filed by the complainant, 
holding that the said respondent had suborned the complainant's 
witnesses, set aside the order of discharge and directed further 
enquiry by another Magistrate who permitted the complainant to 
tender further evidence. The respondent moved the High Con.rt 
in revision and a Division Bench issued a Rule and stayed further 
proceedings. While the matter was thus pending before the 
High Court, the Corporation of Calcutta by a resolution appointed 
the three appellants members of a Special Committee which ran 
as follows :-
"That a Special Committee 
consisting of 
Councillors 
Shri S. K. Gupta, Shri R. N. Majumdar and Shri S. K. Roy be set 
up to enquire into the allegations levelled against certain officials 
of tl:)e Corporation who are alleged to have been taking advantage 
of their high offices in carrying on business in their own names. 
The Committee will take up only those matters that relate to the 
Corporation." 
Subsequent to the passing of the said resolution, the Mayor 
handed over to the Committee certain papers from a Councillor 
containing certain allegations against the Commissioner. It was 
the case of the said respondent that the Special Committee there-
upon examined the complainant and another and issued to him a 
notice along with a questionnaire, the relevant portions of which 
were as follows:-
"As you probably know, we have been appointed to make 
an enquiry into certain allegation$ relating to the administration 
of the Corporation of Calcutta and $pecially into certain steps tai\en 
by you in the matter of assessment and appointments and a few 
other matters, we are giving you a synopsis of the cases in which 
the enquiry is being held and we shall be glad if you kindly give 
us some time between 10 a. m. and II a. m. tomorrow (the 16th 
instant) so that we can get the facts from you." 
• 
• 
• 
l 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
461 
" III (a). It is alleged that between 4th January, 1956, and 
20th September, 1957, i.e., at or about the time when the case 
under section 497, I.P.C., was being tried, you gave appointments 
to the following persons: (1) Anil Koyal (2) Jogendra Nath 
Monda! (3) Ahi Kanta Choudhury (4) Govinda Banerjee (S) 
Narendra Nath Naskar, who are related respectively to Palan 
Koyal, Haradhan (alias Haridhan) Monda!, Tripti Choudhury, 
Thakur Raj Smriti Tirtha and Upendra Naskar, who were cited 
as witnesses in the case. 
(b) It is alleged that about the same time you gave appoint-
ments to Tarak Nath Day, Hardhan Day, Pradip Bhaduri, 
Ardhangsu Monda! etc. and condoned the punishment previously 
inllicted on Dhiren Monda! as they were helping you in conduct-
ing your defence in the case. 
(c) It is alleged that you were instrumental in securing the 
appointment of another probable prosecution witness Kamakshya 
Chatterjee through one M. L. Ghose against whom a demolition 
case was pending." 
Thereupon the first respondent filed a complaint in the High 
Court charging the appellants with contempt of the High Court as 
well as the trial court. The High Coqrt found the appellants 
guilty and convicted them for contempt of Court. Hence this 
appeal. 
Held (per Imam and Raghubar Dayal, JJ., Subba Rao, J. 
dissenting), that the appellants were not guilty of contempt of 
Court and the appeal must succeed. 
It could not be said that the Special Committee had consti-
tuted itself a court of parallel enquiry with regard to matters in 
issue either before the trial Magistrate or the High Court. 
There can be no comparison between the present case and a 
trial conducted by a newspaper. 
The Special Committee was directed by the Corporation to 
enquire into malpractices on the part of its employees, necessarily 
including unworthy appointments, and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.