TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1953 (8) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. Dr. N. B. Khare and others No. 38/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Swami K. N. Sokhta and another. No. 39/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Shri R. K. Shukla and others No. 50/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Thakur Pyarelal Singh and another. No. 48/53: In re Shri Ramgopal Maheshwari and Anr.. 2. Shri M. V. Rajwade, I.A.S., who is the Petitioner in the first six cases is the Deputy Commissioner, Durg. The last case was registered on a petition filed by the Deputy Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Nagpur. These petitions were filed under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, for taking action against the alleged contemners in respect of certain publications. 3. Respondents in these cases are the authors and/or publishers of the impugned articles. (A) The authors concerned are- (1) Dr. S. M. Hasan, Ex-Minister of the State, Nagpur. (Respondent 1 in M. Cr. C. 35/53). (2) Dr. N. B. Khare, President, Civil Liberties Union, Nagpur. (Respondent 1 in M. Cr. C. 37/53). (3) Shri R. K. Shukla, M. L. A. and President, Bar Association, Rajnandgaon (Respondent 1 in M. Cr. C. 39/53). (4) Shri M. R. Awari, M. L. A., Nagpur. (Respondent 2 in M. Cr. C. 39/53). (5) Thakur Pyarelal S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also pleased to direct that "all the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, shall apply to the proceedings of the Commission." 5. The impugned publications refer to the Police action of the 9th January 1953 and to the appointment of the Commission. The details of the publications, briefly are these (1) M. Cr. C. 35 of 1953-This relates to the statement of Dr. S. M. Hasan, Ex-Minister of the State, which was published in the issue of "Nagpur Times", dated the 28th January 1953, under the caption "Chhuikhadan Tragedy and After", and with slight variations in the issue of "Hitavada", dated the 29th January 1953, under the heading "The Chhuikhadan Tragedy". In this statement Dr. S. M. Hasan first described the interview that he had with the injured men and women in the Khairagarh Hospital and later gave the gist of the speeches delivered by some leaders, including himself, in the meeting held at Chhuikhadan to commemorate the 13th day ceremony of the persons who died as a result of the firing. Reading the two publications together, the firing has been described as an "outrage", "inhuman", "indis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts to a deliberate man-slaughter. (4) M. Cr. C. 38 of 1953-This relates to an article published in the issue of "Nayakhun", dated the 16th January 1953, under the head lines "Chhuikhadan firing the climax of Congress Ministry's hostile attitude towards the public". In this article the firing at Chhuikhadan has been compared with that at Jaliyanwala Bagh and has been described as "indiscriminate", "reckless" and "wrongful". (5) M. Cr. C. 39 of 1953-This relates to the statement of Shri R. K. Shukla, M. L. A., which was published in the issue of "Hitavada", dated the 21st January 1953, under the caption "Democracy shot dead". It was stated by him that the firing appeared from certain facts to be "indiscriminate" and that "Persons actually running away" had been shot, and it was asked whether it was an act of revenge since it was reported that "Shri H. S. Awasthi told the people before firing that you showed black flags to me the other day and today I shall show you to the red flag." Reference was also made to Ramsir Bai who is said to have been shot while protesting against the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he validity of the appointment of Shri Justice B. K. Choudhuri on the Commission of Inquiry. It was contended that his appointment was 'ultra vires' of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, as the Commission of Inquiry was not validly constituted, the writings cannot amount to contempt of Court. The question of the validity of Shri Justice B. K. Choudhuri's appointment was already raised and decided in - 'Samaruram Holiram v. B. K. Choudhuri', AIR 1953 Nag 331 (A) by a Division Bench of the High Court, to which one of us (Bhutt J.) was a party. It was contended by Shri Parakh that the decision in that case was not based on a correct approach to the Problem, in so far as while a search ought to have been made to find out if there was any provision in the Constitution under which Shri Justice B. K. Choudhuri could accept the appointment, the question was decided negatively on the ground that there was no prohibition in the Constitution to his doing so. So far as this argument is concerned, we do not see any force in it. Where a party challenges an appointment, it is for it to show a provision of raw which inhibits it. Other points urged were already considere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with certain powers of a Civil Court but does not confer on it the status of a Court. It is only under Sub-section (4) of Section 5 that the Commission is deemed to be a Civil Court and Sub-section (5) imparts to the proceeding before it the character of a judicial proceeding. However, these provisions only create a fiction which cannot extend beyond the purpose for which it is created. 9. In - 'Radha Kissen v. Durga Prosad', AIR 1940 PC 167 (B) the question that was mooted was the right of an attaching decree-holder to adjust the decree with the judgment-debtors for a sum smaller than the amount of the decree. This involved the interpretation of Order 21, Rule 53 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 19(3) of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. Order 21, Rule 53 (3) is in these terms: The holder of a decree sought to be executed by the attachment of another decree of the nature specified in Sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to be the representative of the holder of the attached decree and to be entitled to execute such attached decree in any manner lawful for the holder thereof. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot;civil Court" and what follows it would have been the subject of a sepa-rate Sub-section or sentence. It is, therefore, clear that under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, the Commission is fictionally a civil Court only for the purpose of the contempts punishable under Sections 175, 178, 179, 180 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, subject to the condition that it has not the right itself to punish the contemners, a right which other Courts possess under Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Similarly it follows that the fiction relating to the proceedings before the Commission is confined to offences that are punishable under Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, referred to in Sub-section (5) of the Act, and does not extend beyond this limit. 11. In - 'M. M. Khan v. Emperor', AIR 1931 Lah 662 (C). it was held that the Special Commissioners appointed under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, constitute a "Court" within the meaning of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the fact that they did not give any final decision did not detract from their status as a Court. An analogy was drawn in thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerned, the answer thereto followed from the main decision. These observations apply 'mutatis mutandis to the instant case. The Commission in question was obviously appointed by the State Government "for the information of its own mind", in order that it should not act, in exercise of its executive power, "otherwise than in accordance with the dictates of justice and equity" in ordering a departmental enquiry against its officers. It was, therefore, a fact finding body meant only to instruct the mind of the Government without producing any document of a judicial nature. The two cases are parallel, and the decision must be, as in - 'In re Maharaja Madhava Singh (D)', that the Commission was not a Court. 13. The term "Court" has not been defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. Its definition in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not exhaustive and is intended only for purposes of the Act. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 however, does contemplate a "Court of Justice" which as defined in S. 20, Penal Code, 1860 denotes "a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially". The word "Judge" is defined in Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen it is a Court." (Underlining (here in single quotation) is ours). These observations were approved in - 'Hari Charan v. Kaushi Charan', AIR 1940 Cal 286 (F) and also in - 'Deputy Commr., Goalpara v. Upendra Saran', AIR 1950 Ass 25 (G). The least that is required of a Court is the capacity to deliver a "definitive judgment", and unless this power vests in a tribunal in any particular case, the mere fact that the procedure adopted by it is of a legal character and it has the power to administer an oath will not impart to it the status of a Court. 15. In - 'Satdeo v. Baba Raghav Das', AIR 1953 All 419 (H), on a difference having arisen between the Honourable Judges composing the Bench on the question whether the Court of an Assistant Collector, First Class, under the Land Revenue Act was subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 2(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, the matter was referred to Wali Ullah J. who observed as below: In the present case, the whole difficulty has arisen with regard to the proper interpretation of the expression 'Courts subordinate to them' in Sub-section (1) of Section 2. The 'Co....