RANJIT CHATTERJEE Vs. RAM BADAN CHOUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order dated 13. 5. V passed by B. C. Basak, J, issuing a rule for contempt in C. R. No. 3072 (W) of 1981 and directing the appellants (alleged contemners) to restore whatever coal and whatever other articles were seized and removed on 23. 4. 81, 28. 4. 81 and 29. 4. 81 within 7 days from the date of service of the copy of the said order. The appeal has Been filed on the ground that as the coals, machineries and other implements for extraction of coals have been seized by the officers of Barbani Police Station in connection with three criminal cases, instituted on the complaint of the Chief Mining Officer, asansol under section 30 (2) of the coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, the order of the Trial Judge issuing a rule for contempt and the Order directing return of the said coal and other articles to the accused in the three police cases during investigation are wholly illegal and against the provisions of the said Act and in clear violation of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court.

(2.) THE next ground taken is that the action of Rambadan Choubey (the petitioner in Contempt Cases), an accused in three police cases, is wholly malafide and the said application for contempt has been moved before the trial Judge on 13. 5. 81 immediately after his application for anticipatory bail was rejected on 12. 5. 81 by the criminal Division Bench of this Court and after obtaining three Rules and three interim orders from the Criminal bench sitting singly on 12. 5. 81 and stay of all further proceedings in Barbani police Station Case No. 8 dated 23. 4. 81, case No. 10 dated 26. 4. 81 and Case No 32 dated 29. 4. 81 till the disposal of the three Rules being C. R. Case Nos. 900 916 and 917 of 1981 and also in two criminal Cases started in April 1980 by barbani P. S. till the disposal of or. Revision 901 and 902 of 1981.

(3.) ON an application for stay of operation of the order of B. C. Basak, j, we issued a Rule on 2. 6. 81 and passed an ad-interim stay of operation of the order and all further proceedings. The rule was disposed of by us on 12th June, 1981. On behalf of the respondent-accused a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal was raised and it was contended that it is only against an order or decision of high Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt an appeal lies according to the provisions of section 19 of Contempt of Court's Act, 1971. The impugned order is not an order which was passed in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. We left open the question of maintainability and passed an order that the hearing of the appeal should be expedited. We further ordered that the interim order of stay passed by us on June 2, 1981 should continue till the disposal of the appeal.