LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus REVASHANKAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) .
' .
' .
• •
S.C.R.
\sUPREME COURT REPORTS
1367
••
·:<-..·
since affirmed.by the House of Lords and they quoted
r958
with approval the followtng 'passage from the judg-
5 1
T
Offi
ment of Romer L. J., at p. 13-of the earlier report:
a es
~~
"'
" The short answer is that a Court of Equity Mukundlal Sarnf
cannot say that it is equitable to compel a person to
pay •moneys in respect of a transaction whitih as
Bhagwati J.
against that person the Legislature has declared to be
void."
That ratio was applied by their Lordships to the .
facts of the case before them and the contention was
negatived. Merely because the State of U. P. had not
retained the monies paid by the respondent but had
spent them a way in the ordinary course of the business
of the State would not make any difference to the
µpsition and under the plain terms of s. 72 of the
Indian Contract Act the respondent would be entitled
to recover back the monies paid by it to the State of
U. P. under mistake of law.
The result, therefore; is that none of the contentions
vrged before .us on behalf of the appellants in regard
• to the non-applicability of s. 72 of the Indian Con-
tract Act to the facts of the present case avail them
and the 'appeal is accordingl.Y, dismissed with costs. ·
. .
Appeal dismissed.
. .
8TATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
•
REV ASHANKAR
(.JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS and J. L. KAPUR JJ.)
Contempt of Court-Ouster of High Court's jurisdiction-Test
September 24.
-Contempt of Courts Act, I952 (XXXII of I952), s. "J(2)-Indian
•
Penal Cwie, I86o (XLV of I86o), s. 228.
The respondent, who h~d filed a complaint in respect of an
alleged offence under s. 500 of the Indian Penal Code in the
Court of the Additional District Magistrate' of I1\dore, macfe a
number of aspersions against the Magistrate in in a·pplication
•
•
•
174
• .
. .
-
-
Slate of .\fadhya
Prade.>h
v.
Re~·ashatikaY
•
• ,
• •
1368
SUPREME COURT REPORTrf
[1959]
made to him uncler s. 528 of the Co<le of Crimi!lil Procedure, two
of which were of a serious ch!trac<er. It was alleged that the
!\lagistratc \\.·as a party tu a.conspiracy \\'ith certain others the>
ohjt>ct of \\'hich 1,1,·as t\\·o implicate the complainant in a false
casr of theft anrl that a lawyer appearing for the accr.sed per-
sons, to whom the ~!agistrate was favourably inclined, had
declar<!tl that he had paid a sum of Hs. 500 to the Magil;tratc.
Those allegations were later on repeated in an affida~it. The
~lagistrate reported the matter to the J{egi;trar of the High
Court for necessary action. The High Court called upon the
respondent to show cause why he shoulcl not be proceeded
against in contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952.
The .Judges of the Di,·ision Bench who hearcl the matter, with-
out going into the merits of the case. hrld that, prin1': facif, the
offence ,., .. as one of intentional in~ult under s. 228 of the l ndian
Penal Coric ancl, cunsequrutly, the jurisdiction of the High
Court was ousted under s. 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1952.
•
/Icld, that the lligh Court had taken au erroneous \·iew of
the 1natter and it:; orcler n1ust he set aside.
The ITI.:!re existence of an clement of insult in I he alleged
act of conten1pt \\'as not conclusi,·e as to the applicahility of
s. 228 of the Indian Penal Code so as to oust lhc jurisdiction
of the High Court under s. 3(2) of the Contempt of Court';
Act.
\Vhilc Judges and Courts arc not beyond critU:isrn, and
there are v.·ell-recognisecl linWts to such critic:istn, and contctll..Pt
proceedings arc not n1eant to shield .Juclges fro1n µcr~onal insul1s,
there can he no question that \vhcre defan1atory aspersif,ns are
cast upon the.cha<acter and ability of individual Judges or of
Courts in general, which in substancr. scandalise the Court itself
and have the effect of undermining the confidence o·,: the public
in it and thus hinder <lue achninistration of justice, t:he contcrnpt
is of a kind which exceeds the limits of s. 228 of the Indian
Penal Code.
'fhc true test, therefore, is: is the act compl;incd of an
off«nce un<lcr s. 228 of the Indian Penal Code, ;)f son1cthing
tnore than that? If it is sornething 1nore, the jurisdii.c:tion of
the High Court is not oustec:\ by s. J(2) of the Contempt of
Courts Act.
So jo<lgr.cl, there could be no cloubt that the aspersions cast
in the present case arnountecl to scandalising the con rt itself, and
\\"ere no mere Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.