STATE Vs. DASRATH JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rule calling upon one Dasrath Jha, who is one of the defts. in Title Suit No. 20 of 1950 pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dumka to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Ct. The rule was issued on a report submitted to this Ct. by the learned Subordinate Judge, the report being that the deft, has been interfering with the Receiver's possession over the tank which is the subject-matter of the aforesaid suit. The suit is for recovery of possession of the said tank and for compensation, the contention of this deft, being that he was allowed to take possession of the tank by the manager or the agent of the pltf. who had promised to execute a lease in his favour. By an order dated 3-7-1950 one Babu Ram Narain Prasad, Pleader, was appointed the Receiver, and on 14-7-1950 he submitted a report to the learned Subordinate Judge that it had been reported to him by Mukhi Muchi & Jugal Misra whom he had deputed for announcing his appointment, that the deft, had prevented them from making the announcement & had refused to give possession of the tank to them as the Receiver's men. On that very date the deft, was directed to make over possession of the property to the Receiver, & the Receiver was directed to report by 20-7-1950 as to whether he had taken possession of the tank or not. On 25-7-1950, the Receiver reported to the learned Subordinate Judge that he had received a letter from the deft, on 14-7-1950 in which he had stated that the Receiver might continue in possession & that ho would never interfere with his possession. The Receiver, however, further reported that his men, Jugal Misra & Mukhi Muchi had again been prevented by one Tope Singh from making the announcement & that about thirty persons had been found angling in the tank. Five out of these thirty persons were alleged to have told Jugal Misra that they had been angling with the permission of the deft. Jugal Misra & Mukhi Muchi filed affidavit before the learned Subordinate Judge in which they stated that they had been prevented from making the announcement by Tope Singh who is an employee in the tea stall of Dasrath Jha, & three out of the five persons who are said to have admitted that they had been angling with the permission of the deft, also filed affidavits stating that they had caught fish with the permission of the deft. & that the defendant had taken his share out of the fishes caught. No counter-affidavit was filed by the deft., & the learned Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that though the deft, had undertaken not to interfere with the Receiver's possession he had actually interfered with his possession inasmuch as he had permitted other persons to fish in the tank.

(2.) In this Cfc., however, one counter-affidavit was filed on 21-11-1950 by one Sarbanand Missir on behalf of the deft. in which the allegations made against the deft, were controverted. On 14-12-1950, the deft, himself filed another affidavit in which he made the same statements which had been made by Sarbanand Missir in the affidavit filed on 21-11-1950. The contention of the deft, is that he has no concern' whatsoever with Tope Singh, & that while Mukhi Muchi is a tenant of the pltf. & a servant in the pltf.'s estate, Jugal Missir is a sipahi in the pltf.'s estate. About Amal Chandra Roy, one of the three persons who are said to have fished in the tank, the contention of the deft, is that he is his sworn enemy and had filed a number of false complaints against him before the Provincial Congress Committee. About the two other persons who have sworn the affidavits, namely, Bhola Rakshit, & Nabanidhar Gorain, the deft, says that the former wa3 himself an applicant for taking a lease of the pond in suit and that the latter is the pltf.'s raiyat & a thikadir of the timber belonging to the pltf. Dasrath Jha has made one very important statement in his affidavit, & it is this that when the fishing took place the Receiver himself was present.

(3.) No doubt, it is a circumstance against the defendant that he did not file any counter-affidavit before the learned Subordinate Judge, controverting the allegations which had been made by Jugal Misra, Mukhi Muchi, Bhola Rakshit, Nabanidhar Gorain & Amal Chandra Roy in their affidavits. But the position of an alleged contemner is not exactly that of an accused person, & unlike the latter he can always file an affidavit or make a statement on oath. As already painted out, the deft, has been able to allege in this Ct. something against each of the deponents on whose affidavit reliance is placed on behalf of the State. It has been repeatedly pointed out that proceedings for contempt of Court are of a summary nature & that such proceedings are not suitable for the-decision of a hotly contested question of fact. Of course, there is nothing to prevent us from taking evidence, & there is no hard & fast rule-to the effect that no evidence can be taken. But the question is whether it would be desirable to hold an enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the statements made in the affidavits filed by Amal Chandra Roy & others. There is a fundamental distinction between contempts that are criminal & those that are civil. The former consist in a conduct that offends the Majesty of Law & undermine the dignity of the Ct. A civil contempt, on the other hand, is a failure to obey a Ct.'s order issued for the benefit of the opposing party, & the principal object of a civil contempt is to secure the enforcement of the order. The Cts. do not ordinarily interfere unless the disobedience is shown to be wilful. What is important to note in this case is that on 14-7 1950 this deft, had written a letter to the Receiver in which he had stated that as the tank had been put under the management of the Receiver, he would never go to the tank with the intention of fishing & that the tank would continue to be in the Receiver's possession. The Receiver had no doubt deputed two-persons to announce his appointment by beat of drum, but it appears that he personally never went to the tank to take possession or to arrange for the fishing. It is a very striking circum-stance that the Receiver never stated before the Ct. that he had been to the tank & that in his presence the deft, interfered with his management or possession. The Receiver has depended entirely on the report of the two persons one of whom is a drummer & the other, according to the allegation of the deft., a sipahi of the pltf.'s estate. We cannot at all be sure in this ease that Jugal Missir & Mukhi Muchi are not persons connected with the pltf.'s estate & are persons who can be regarded as independent & disinterested & as such it will not, to my mind, be safe to act on the affidavits of tho3e two persons; & it will be still more unsafe to act on the affidavits of the three other persons, Amal Chandra Roy & others. Regarding Amal Chanira Roy the deft, has been bold enough to state that he is his sworn enemy & had filed a number of false complaints against him before the Provincial Congress Committee. The deft. further says that ha had filed a complaint against one Kalachand Chakravarti in which the charge was of black-marketing & that this Kalachand Chakravarti is the Mama (maternal uncle) of Anvil Chandra Roy. Bhola Rikshit is said to be a dismissed compounder of the Dumka hospital & the allegation is that he had himself applied for a lease of this pond in suit. He was thus, according to the daft., a competitor for the lease of the tank in suit. Nabanidhar Gorain is said to be a raiyat & a thikadar of the pltf. It is to be noted that the pltf. is an absentee landlord, & it would appear from paragraph (1) of the plaint that he ordinarily resides in England & that his estate in Dumka is managed by his managers & agents. Amal Chandra Roy & others are not fishermen by profession, & it is very doubtful if the deft, would engage them for fishing in this disputed tank. Nabanidhar Gorain says in his affidavit that he had obtained a permit from the deft. for catching fish after he had paid the deft. Re. 1. If so, that permit ought to have been produced. If a permit had been is mod by the deft, to Nabanidhar Gorain, there is no reason why similar permits should not have been issued to Bhola Rakshit & Amal Chandra Roy. Thus, some substantial criticisms can be advanced against the affidavits that have been filed by Amal Chandra Roy and others. Proceedings for contempt of Court, though not criminal, are of a quasi-criminal nature & therefore, where there is any reasonable doubt, the person charged with contempt is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. The circumstance that the Receiver himself never visited the tank & has not come forward with the statement that there was any interference by the deft. in his presence is by itself a very strong circumstance, & it appears to me to be quite unsafe to place absolute reliance on the affidavits that have been filed by Jugal Missir, Amal Chandra Roy & others. All Cts. before exercising their jurisdiction to commit for contempt have to act with care & circumspection, & on the materials that are available in the present case I am of opinion that the alleged contemner is at least entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt. I would, therefore, discharge this rule.