BASANTA CHANDRA GHOSE Vs. COLLECTOR OF PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant in this case was punished for contempt of court, by a Special Bench of this Court in Original Criminal Miscellaneous No 4 of 1959, decided on 29-1-1960. The judgment is reported in the matter of Basanta Chandra Ghosh, AIR 1960 Pat 430. A fine of Rs. 250/- was imposed upon him, in default, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. A cost of Rs. 500/- was assessed and awarded against him.

(2.) Ext. A shows that on 11-3-1960 a notice was directed to issue bv the Special Bench to Shri B. C. Ghosh to deposit, a sum of Rs. 500, the amount of cost payable by him. within a week of the receipt of the notice, failing which a warrant was directed to be prepared and sent to the Collector of Patna for execution and realisation in terms of Section 386(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Code'). It appears from the same exhibit that later on when the appellant - filed an application under Article 134(l)(c) of the Constitution of India for grant of a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court, while rejecting that application by order dated 13-7-1960, the Special Bench repelled the contention put forward on his behalf that the order for cost was made without affording him an opportunity to show cause against that order. It was pointed out that during the course of the hearing of the proceeding for contempt, on the basis of several authorities, an indication was given to the appellant that he could be saddled with cost. His contention that the amount of cost could not be realised under Section 386(1)(b) of the Code was also repelled by observing that it was open to this Court to have the cost realised by a number of ways including by directing to deposit it within certain period failing which he might be proceeded with for contempt of court, or it was also open to the Court to resort to a milder procedure prescribed by Section 386(1 Kb) of the Code.

(3.) The appellant paid the amount of Rs. 250 imposed upon him as fine, but is resisting the execution case filed by the Collector for realisation of the amount of Rs. 500 awarded against him as cost. He is doing so on two grounds, (1) that the order of the High Court awarding cost is without jurisdiction and a nullity, and (2) that costs rannot be realised by following the procedure prescribed under Section 386(1)(b) of the Code.