STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. REVASHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment an order of the then Madhya Bharat High Court, dated February 9, 1955, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 1954. Originally, the appeal was filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Bharat, now substituted by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appeal raises an important question with regard to the interpretation of S. 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 (XXXII of 1952), hereinafter referred to as the Act, which repealed the earlier Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 (XII of 1926), as also the Indore Contempt of Courts Act (V of 1930), which was earlier in force in the State of Madhya Bharat.

(2.) The facts so far as they are relevant to this appeal are these. One Ganga Ram, stated to be the landlord of the respondent Revashankar, instituted a suit, which was numbered as 1383 of 1952 in the court of the Additional City Civil Judge, Indore, for ejectment and arrears of rent against Revashankar. It was stated that the suit was flied in the name of Ganga Ram and his wife Chandra Mukhi Bai. It was further alleged that one Mr. Uma Shankar Chaturvedi, a lawyer acting on behalf of Ganga Ram, advised the latter to sign the name of his wife Chandra Mukhi Bai though Chandra Mukhi Bai herself did not sign the plaint or the vakalatnama. In this suit Chandra Mukhi Bai filed an application for permission to prosecute her husband for forgery. Another application was flied by certain other persons said to be other tenants of Ganga Ram in which some allegations were made against Revashankar. On June 29, 1953, Revashankar filed a complaint against five persons for an alleged offence under S. 500, Indian Penal Code. This complaint was verified on July 13, 1953, and was registered as Criminal Case No. 637 of 1953 in the court of one Mr. N. K. Acharya, Additional District Magistrate, Indore. In that case one Mr. Kulkarni appeared on behalf of the complainant Revashankar. The accused persons appeared on August 8, 1953, through Messrs Mohan Singh and Uma Shankar Chaturvedi. An objection was raised on behalf of the accused persons to the appearance of Mr. Kulkarni as the latter's name appeared in the list of witnesses. This was followed by a spate of applications and counter-applications and on October 12, 1953, the learned Additional District Magistrate passed an order to the effect that the copies of the applications as well as of the affidavits filed by both parties should be sent to the District Judge for necessary action against the lawyers concerned. In the meantime a criminal case was started against Revashankar in the court of the Additional City Magistrate, Circle No. 2, for an alleged offence under S. 497, Indian Penal Code. The case was started on the complaint of Ganga Ram. That case was numbered as 644 of 1958. We then come to the crucial date, namely, December 17, 1958. On that date Revashankar filed an application in the court of the Additional District Magistrate who was in seizin of Criminal Case No. 637 of 1953. The application purported to be one under S. 528, Code of Criminal Procedure. This application contained some serious aspersions against the Magistrate, Mr. N. K. Acharya. The aspersions were summarised by the learned Judges of the High Court under the following four categories. The first aspersion was that from the order dated October 12, 1958 it appeared that Mr. N. K. Acharya wanted to favour Mr. Uma Shankar Chaturvedi. The second aspersion was that from certain opinions expressed by the Magistrate, Revashankar asserted that he was sure that he would not get impartial and legal justice from the Magistrate. The third aspersion was of a more serious character and it was that the Magistrate had a hand in a conspiracy hatched by M/s. Mohan Singh and Uma Shankar Chaturvedi regarding certain ornaments of Chandra Mukhi Bai with the object of involving, Revashankar, and his brother Sushil Kumar in a false case of theft of ornaments. The fourth aspersion was that Mr. Uma Shankar Chaturvedi had declared that he had paid Rs. 500 to the Magistrate through Ganga Ram. These aspersions were later repeated in an affidavit on December 21, 1953. On January II, 1954, the learned Magistrate reported the aforesaid facts to the Registrar of the Madhya Bharat High Court and prayed for necessary action against Revashankar for contempt of court. On this report the High Court directed the issue of notice to Revashankar to show cause why action should not be taken against him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 1954 was accordingly started against Revashankar. On March 3, 1954, Revashankar showed cause. The case was then heard by it Division Bench consisting of V. R. Newaskar and S. M. Samvatsar, JJ, and by an older dated February 9, 1955, the learned Judges held that by reason of the provisions in S. 3(2) of the Act the jurisdiction of the High Court was ousted inasmuch as the act complained of constituted an offence under S. 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The question for consideration in the present appeal is if the aforesaid view of the High Court is correct.

(3.) Mr. H. J. Umrigar, who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, has very strongly submitted before us that the High Court has erred in holding that the act of the respondent complained of constituted an offence under S. 228, Indian Penal Code, and the jurisdiction of the High Court was, therefore, ousted by reason of the provisions in S. 3(2) of the Act. It is necessary to read first S. 3(2) of the Act. We may state here that the corresponding section in the earlier Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 was S. 2(3) and in the judgment under consideration there is some confusion as to the correct number of the suit-section, section 3(2) of the Act is in these terms: