1953 (2) TMI 38 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court acquits officials in contempt case, emphasizes duty boundaries.

RIZWAN UL HASAN Versus STATE OF UP.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment of contempt against two appellants, members of the Uttar Pradesh Civil ... - Issues:Contempt of court - Transmission of applications by the appellants to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate - Allegations against the Magistrate - Duty of the appellants as superior officers - High Court's finding of contempt - Lack of vigilance vs. deliberate intention - Appellants' actions not interfering with the course of justice - Misconceived proceedings.Analysis:The judgment revolves around an appeal by two appellants, members of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service, against a finding of contempt of court by the High Court of Allahabad. The first appellant, a District Magistrate, received an application with allegations against a trying Magistrate, which he forwarded for report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The second appellant, officiating as District Magistrate, forwarded an application accompanied by a recommendatory letter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The High Court held both appellants guilty of contempt for transmitting the applications, but the Supreme Court found the proceedings misconceived. The appellants, as superior officers, were under a duty to supervise the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's work, and their actions of transmitting the applications in the usual course did not interfere with the course of justice.The High Court's reasoning for finding contempt against the appellants was based on the belief that their actions lacked circumspection and thought, leading to a supposed interference with the due course of justice. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the appellants' actions were part of their official duties and did not have a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice. The Court highlighted that the applications were sent for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's views in the normal course of official practice, and the High Court's view that only extracts should have been sent was unfounded.Regarding the first appellant's authority to withdraw the case under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Supreme Court upheld his actions as lawful. The appellant had the right to send the application containing allegations against the trying Magistrate for remarks, and upon finding the allegations baseless, he declined to withdraw the case. The Court concluded that the District Magistrate's actions were in line with his duties and did not create prejudice or interfere with the administration of justice.In summary, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment of contempt against the appellants, and acquitted them of the charges under the Contempt of Courts Act. The Court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between carelessness and deliberate interference with the course of justice, noting that the appellants' actions were within the scope of their duties and did not warrant contempt proceedings.