1968 (4) TMI 96 - SC - Indian Laws

Knowledge of stay order by quasi-judicial members in contempt case-late, unsworn application failed; conviction set aside on appeal

Contempt jurisdiction turned on whether quasi-judicial members of a local adjudicatory body had proved knowledge, beyond reasonable doubt, of an HC stay ... - 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether the members of a Nyaya Panchayat could be held guilty of contempt for proceeding with a matter allegedly stayed by the High Court, when the only intimation placed before them was an application accompanied by a document purporting to be an affidavit that was not sworn before an authorised person and lacked supporting material. (ii) Whether, on the proved material, there was unimpeachable evidence establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the Panchayat functionaries had knowledge of the High Court's stay order, so as to infer wilful disobedience rather than a bona fide judicial decision to proceed. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i) & (ii) (Grouped): Proof of knowledge and wilful disobedience for contempt based on alleged notice of stay Legal framework (as applied by the Court): The Court proceeded on the basis that breach of a prohibitive order may constitute contempt even without formal service if notice 'aliunde' is proved; however, the person alleging knowledge must prove it beyond all reasonable doubt, and if the alleged contemnor bona fide finds the source of information not authentic, contempt is not made out. The Court treated contempt as a serious matter requiring caution before holding judicial functionaries guilty. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court confined the inquiry to whether the Sarpanch and Panchas had reliable notice of the stay order on the day they proceeded. It assessed the only material shown to have been placed before the Nyaya Panchayat on the hearing date-an application asserting a stay, accompanied by a document described as an affidavit. The Court found the 'affidavit' was not sworn before any person authorised to administer oaths and therefore was not an affidavit at all. The application also did not state the date of the stay order, did not annex even a copy of the telegram, and appeared to have been presented after proceedings had commenced and evidence had been taken. On such material, the Court held it could not be concluded that the Panchas' refusal to act on a mere unverified assertion was mala fide or that their bona fides could be doubted. The Court further held it was not part of the Panchas' duty to verify from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate whether an application with a telegram had been filed there, and in any event the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to stay proceedings before the Nyaya Panchayat when no proceeding was pending before him. While adjournment to enable better proof could be granted in some situations, the Court held a judicial officer is not bound to adjourn; if, in bona fide exercise of discretion, proceedings are not adjourned, contempt cannot be inferred. The Court also emphasised that Panchas are not well-versed in law and procedure and that their records should not be judged by the standards of ordinary courts; hence, no adverse inference should be drawn merely because their reasons for not staying proceedings were not recorded in the order sheet. Conclusions: The Court held there was no unimpeachable evidence establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the Panchayat functionaries had knowledge of the High Court's stay order. In the absence of such proof, wilful disobedience was not made out, and the finding of contempt could not stand. Accordingly, the contempt conviction and sentence were set aside.