STATE Vs. S N DIKSHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971 ). hereinafter referred to as the Act. were initiated at the instance of the District Judge. Etawah arising out of an application made by the Additional District "magistrate (Judicial) Sri Ghyasuddin Ahmad to the Registrar of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

(2.) IT is necessary to refer to the background which led to the making of the above reference to this Court. The opposite party claims to be the Secretary of the Electric Workers' Union. Etawah. On September 15. 1970 he brought a complaint against Sri N. P. Dutta. Chief Engineer of the Western -U. P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Etawah, for offences under Sections 341. 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. While that complaint was pending enquiry, he filed another complaint on January 16, 1971 against Sri N. P. Dutta as well as three others, namely Sarvasri K, L. Pahuia Labour Laws Adviser. Krishna Prasad. Managing Director of the said Electric Company and Dalip Chand Chadda. Consultant and Adviser for Industrial Law. This complaint was for offences under Sections 465. 466. 468. 469. '471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In pursuance of both complaints the statement of the complainant under Section 200. Criminal P, C. was recorded as also the statements of his witnesses Under Section 202, Criminal P. C. The learned Additional District Magistrate passed orders in both cases on 7-4-1971. In the first complaint case he found satisfactory evidence against the Chief. Engineer Sri A. P. Dutta and. therefore, issued orders_ for summoning him as an accused but in the latter case there was, according to him. no evidence to justify summoning of the accused persons and, therefore, he dismissed the complaint.

(3.) SRI S. N. Dikshit. contemner, did not go up in revision against the order of dismissal of the complaint. On the other hand, he filed a third complaint in the same Court on September 10. 1971 against the same set of four accused persons and on the same facts as formed the subject-matter of the second complaint. Again, the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200. Criminal P. C. and that of a single witness in support of the same under Section 202, Criminal P. C. The Additional District Magistrate passed a detailed order on 159-1971 holding that there was no satisfactory evidence and also that the complainant had no right to bring a fresh complaint on the same facts and evidence on which a previously instituted complaint had already been dismissed. He also observed that in the circumstances of the case the summoning of the accused would be a gross abuse of the process of the Court. It was this order which seems to have greatly offended the contemner. He addressed a letter dated 16-9-1971 to Sri Mohammad Ghyasuddin. Additional District Magistrate which may be reproduced below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_19_TLALL0_1972Html1.htm</FRM>