AMULYA CHANDRA BHADURI Vs. SATIS CHANDRA GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling upon four persons named Satish Chandra Giri, Probhat Giri, Narendra Samanta and Gobordhone Kamle to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt. The circumstances under which the present Rule came to be issued, shortly stated, are as follows: It appears that some time in February 1930 the receiver of the admittedly debuttar estate attached to the Tarakeswar temple made an application to the District Judge of Hooghly praying that proceedings in contempt might be taken against the above-named persons inasmuch as they had been attempting to impede and stultify the administration by the receiver of the debuttar estate by resorting to improper and unlawful means and artifices, as they had been guilty of direct illegal obstruction offered to the officers in the discharge of their lawful duties, as they had used criminal force and criminal intimidation under the circumstances stated in the petition or report of the receiver and as they had been guilty of offering insults and threats to the receiver and the officers under him. The District Judge thereupon issued notices upon the persons concerned and called upon them to show cause why they should not be proceeded against in contempt.

(2.) A number of witnesses were examined before the District Judge on the side of the receiver as also on the side of the persons concerned and a number of records from the Magisterial and other Courts were admitted in evidence, and finally the District Judge came to the conclusion on 9 January 1931 after a prolonged inquiry that it has been established to his satisfaction that the persons concerned had been guilty of various acts of contempt. He thereupon referred the matter to this Court for taking such proceedings against the said persons as this Court thought proper under the provisions of Act 12 of 1926. The matter came before my learned brothers, Lort-Williams, J. and S.K. Ghose, J., who were then presiding over the Criminal Bench and which Bench ha 1 been authorized by the learned Chief Justice to deal with and dispose of the reference made by the District Judge of Hooghly. The learned Judges came to the conclusion that a Rule had to be issued upon the persons concerned and that such Rule should be issued on the petition or report of the receiver made to the District Judge and the affidavit in support thereof. They expressed the view that one of the parties to the litigation should have moved in the matter, but, inasmuch as that had not been done, they thought it expedient in the circumstances appearing before them to issue a Rule on the report or petition of the receiver to the District Judge treating the same as if it was a petition to this Court. That Rule has now come on for hearing before us.

(3.) We have examined such portions of the record as have been brought to our notice. It is quite clear that the only allegations which Satish Chandra Giri and the three other persons named above are called upon to answer are the allegations made in the petition or report of the receiver to the District Judge which petition or report was treated as if it was a petition to this Court and the affidavit in support thereof. Confining ourselves therefore to the grounds upon which the present Rule has been issued and which are the only grounds that the opposite parties are called upon to answer, it is to be observed that the affidavit in support of the report or petition of the receiver is singularly lacking in precision.