SAMMBHU NATH JHA versus KEDAR PRASAD SINHA & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 183 · Decided: 24-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
183 
SAMMBHU NATH JHA 
v. 
KEDAR PRASAD SINHA & ORS. 
January 24, 1972 
(J.M. SHELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Court-Publication in Newspaper of notification under s. 
3 of Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 instituting inquiry against ers~ 
while ministers of Bihar Government-Allegation in notification against 
one of the ministers that he had against advice of officials ordered with-
drawal of prosecution of criminal case and on trial court refusing permis-
sion to withdraw ordered filing of revision petition in ·High Court and 
thereby interfered with course of justice-Revision filea in~ Hig,h Court by 
accused also-Revisions pending in High Court at time of publication of 
notification in Newspaper-Such publication whether eo.nstitutes contempt 
of Court-Section 3(1) of Commissions of Inquiry Act whether makes it 
mandatory for Government to publish notification in official gazette. 
The appellant who was a minister in the State Government of Bihar-
issued to the press a copy of the notification published in the Bihar 
Gazette Extraordinary dated March 12, 1968 whereby an inquiry bad 
been instituted, among others, against a former minister of the State 
Government. According to allegation No. J-4 in the schedule annexed to 
the notification the said minister had by misuse of his official position and 
power unnecessarily interfered with the administration · of justice in a 
serious case of rioting and murder. It was alleged that he had1 against the 
opinion of the District Magistrate and the Law Secretary, ordere!l the with-
drawal of the prosecution against two of the accuSed and the"fWter when 
the Trial Court rejected the application for, withdrawal he caused a reVi-
sion petition to be filed in the High Court. The Searchlight of Patna in 
its issue of March 14, 1948 published the copy of the notification issued 
to it by the appellant, including the schedule of allegations. Ai\. applica-
tion was filed on March 25, 1968 by the two accused aforesaid in the High 
Court for initiating contempt of Court proceedings against several persons 
including the appellant and the printer and publisher of Searchlight. It 
was urged by the applicants that revision petitions filed by them and by 
the State Government against the orders of the Trial Court refusing l?"r-
mission to withdraw the case were pending in the High Court at the time 
of publication and since allegation No. J-4 in the schedule to the notifica-
tion was related to the subject matter of the said revision petitions the 
publication constituted interference with the course of justice inasmuch 
as it had prejudiced mankind against them. 
HELD : The Courts have power to take action against a person who 
•does an act or publishes a writing which is calculated to bring a court or 
judge into contempt or to lower his authority or to obstruct the course of 
justice or due administration of law. ·As intention of the contemner to oauae 
those consequences is not a necessary ingredient of contempt of court and 
it is enough to show that his act was calculated to obstruct or interfere 
with the due course c!f justice and administration of law, there would be 
quite a number of cases where the contempt aneged would be of a teclml-
ca! nature. 
In such cases, the court would exercise circumspectfon and 
judicial reru-aint in the matter of taking action for contempt cif coul'l.-The 
184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972) 3 S.C.R. 
court bas to take into account the surrounding ci'rcumstances and the 
material facts of the case and on c0nspectus of them to come to a con-
clusion whether because of some contumacious conduct or other sulllcient 
reason the person proceeded against should be punished for comtempt of 
court. fl 89 E-0] 
Reg. v. Gray (1900] 2 Q.B. 36; E.M.S. Namboodripad v. 
T. N. 
Namblar, [1970] S.C.C. 325; Re: P. C. Sen, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 649; Debi 
Prasad Sharma and Ors. v. The King Emperor, L.R. 70 I.A. at p. 224; 
Legal Remembrancer v. Matilal Ghose and Others. I.L.R. 41, Cal. 173, 
applied. 
Plain reading of S. 3(i) of the Commissions of Enquiry of Act makes it 
manifest that -the notification appointing a commission of inquiry must be 
published in the official gazette. It is an inperative requirement and cannot 
be dispensed with. The commisslon (J'f inquiry is appointed for the pur-
pose of making an inquiry into some matter of public importance. The 
schedule containing the various allegations in the present case was a p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.