SAIBAL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. B K SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were convicted for contempt of court and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 by the Calcutta High Court. THEy applied to the High Court for a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court which was granted. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) ON 19/03/1955, one Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alipore, against the respondent B. K. Sen under S. 497 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate after examining numerous witnesses declined to frame a charge and discharged the accused under S. 253(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by his order dated 13/07/1957. Against the order of discharge Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury filed a revisional application before the Sessions Judge of 24 Paraganas, who by his order dated 22/11/1957, directed further enquiry. ON 3/01/1958, the Magistrate while holding further enquiry, as directed, allowed the prosecution to tender further evidence. ON 3/02/1958, the accused B. K. Sen filed a revision petition in the Calcutta High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge directing further enquiry as well as the order of the Magistrate permitting the prosecution to lead further evidence. The High Court thereupon issued a Rule and stayed further proceedings.

(3.) ACCORDING to B. K. Sen, on 11/04/1958, Bimala Kanta Roy was examined by the Committee and he admitted that his case against B. K. Sen under S. 497 of the Indian Penal Code was at that time pending consideration before the High Court. Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury then alleged that either the witnesses themselves or their near relations got appointments in the Corporation of Calcutta. Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury had specifically mentioned one Tarak Nath Dey. The entire purpose of the statement of Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury was to prove the truth of his allegations that B. K. Sen had abused his official position and had created a situation which made it impossible for him to produce relevant witnesses to prove his case. The Special Committee then caused the production of Tarak Nath Dey and confronted him with Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury. Tarak Nath Dey was then examined but denied that he was the agent of the wife of Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury or the Tadbirkar of B. K. Sen. The Special Committee went out of their way to traverse the grounds and take evidence on matters which were directly and substantially in issue and were pending in the Calcutta High Court. B. K. Sen further alleged in his petition that the appellants had set up a parallel court of enquiry for ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury. That the action of the Special Committee was calculated to create an atmosphere of prejudice against him and amounted to unwarranted interference with the free flow of justice. The action of the Special Committee had a tendency to prejudice the trial and/or to influence the decision of the case by the trial Court or by the High Court. The Special Committee thereafter issued to him a questionnaire. The relevant portions of the questionnaire are in the following terms:-