SAIBAL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. B K SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three petitioners before us have been found by a Division Beach to have committed contempt of this Court as also the Court of a Magistrate and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each. They are all Councilors of the Corporation of Calcutta and one of them, Mr. S. K. Gupta, is also the present Chairman of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. The finding against them is that they, as members of a Special Committee set up by the Corporation, took it upon themselves to investigate into and decide certain matters which were awaiting decision by this Court and the Court of the Magistrate in a criminal proceeding against one Mr. B. K. Sen. Mr. B. K. Sen, who is the Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta, was the petitioner before the learned Judges and is the sole respondent before us. The learned Judges have found that the petitioners before us embarked upon an enquiry as to Mr. Sen's conduct in relation to the litigation and thus embarked upon a course of conduct which was calculated to interfere with the administration of justice and thereby they committed contempt of the Courts before which the litigation was pending. The petitioners desire to appeal to the Supreme Court against that decision and have made the present application for a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.

(2.) The first question is whether the application lies. Article 134(1)(c) provides that, subject to there being a certificate of fitness by the High Court concerned, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India. It is thus clear that in order that an order of a High Court, sought to be appealed from, may come under the Article, it is necessary that it should be an order made in a criminal proceeding. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that proceedings taken against a person for contempt of Court are not criminal proceedings at all and, therefore, no certificate under Article 134(l)(c) could be asked for for the purposes of an appeal to the Supreme Court against an order made in such proceedings. That was the only ground on which the maintainability of the present application was questioned.

(3.) Broadly speaking, proceedings taken with respect to contempt of Court have been held to be neither civil nor criminal, but to be a class by them selves and thus sui generis. For the purposes of an appeal to the Supreme Court on a certificate granted by a High Court, the Constitution recognises three kinds of proceedings, namely, 'civil' proceedings which are dealt with in Article 133, 'criminal proceedings which are dealt with in Article 134 and 'other proceedings which are dealt with along with civil and criminal proceedings, in Article 132. The last-mentioned Article, however, is limited to cases which involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Stated in terms of the Constitution, the respondent's objection before us is that proceedings taken against a person for contempt of Court are "other proceedings" and where, as here, there is no question as to the interpretation of the Constitution, no appeal from an order made in such proceedings lies to the Supreme Court on a certificate granted by a High Court. Necessarily, an application for a certificate in such a case does not come under Article 134(1)(c).