The accused refused to make statements and put down their signatures.
2 to 5 disobeyed the order of the Honble High Court and disposed of the case on 25 12 63 and thus they companymitted companytempt of the Honble High Court.
It happened that the S.D.M. was absent on December 23, 1963, and papers were put up before Shri S. K. Srivas tava, Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate, who issued the order Put up with records.
3/ each on accused Nos.
It seems to us that it is number proved on the evidence here that any such application was made before the Nyaya Panchayat.
Bunna Prasad, in his affidavit, stated that as the Nyaya Panchayat was number satisfied for want of evidence by way of proper affidavit etc.,
The statements of the companyplainant and his witnesses, Bhabhuti and Damri, are recorded.
The High Court, on examination of the evidence, came to the companyclusion that it was the Sarpanch who bad initially declared that the affidavit of the applicant was number proper and that the matter should file a proper affidavit in support of his allegations, though the Sarpanch had admitted in his deposition that he had to authority to tell Mahabir that his affidavit was number proper.
An urgent companyy of the order was applied for and obtained on that very day and the companynsel sent a telegram in the following words Allahabad He 20 Baldeopd cashier Trust Sdr GR Mahabir application admitted stay granted Banwarilal.
4 and 5 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, against the five appellants and S. K. Srivastava, A.S.D.M. The main allegation, apart from reciting the facts which we have already detailed above, was that in spite of the knowledge of the interim stay dated 20 12 63 passed by the Honble High Court the Sarpanch, the Opposite Party No.
The order sheet reads thus Put up today the 25th December, 1963.
On December 20, 1963, Mahabir moved an application under Art.
Appeal by special leave from the jurisdiction and order dated April 29, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc.
The High Court held There was numberreasonable ground for the Panchas to have doubted the averments made in the application and affidavit of Mahabir that the High Court had stayed further proceedings before the Panchayat, number is there any thing in the order sheet to show that the Panchas did number believe the companytents of the application, and affidavit of Mahabir.
However, if they wanted to ascertain the matter, they should have at best stayed the proceedings for a short while and should have asked the applicant to produce a certified companyy of the stay order.
This order was signed by three Panchas, Phagu Parsad, Jagat Dubey and Badri Yadav.
1,000/ and further ordering that in case of default they shall undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks.
The companyplainant and the accused are present.
43 of 1965.
9/ on accused No.
On September 2, 1963, Yashoda, son of Raj Kumar, filed a companyplaint before the Nyaya Panchayat, Jokha Khas, against Jagdeo, Mahabir and Laxmi alleging that he had been abused and be laboured and his property worth Rs.
40/ damaged.
On the same day a final order was made holding the accused guilty and imposing a fine of Rs.
He prayed that the Panchayat Adalat be directed to postpone proceedings pending the receipt of the stay order.
227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the S.D.M., dated November 28, 1963, and on the same day the High Court admitted the application and stayed further proceedings before the Nyaya Panchayat.
The application of Mahabir, referred to in the order, reads thus .lm15 Sir, It is submitted that I have filed a writ petition in the above case, in the High Court.
He produced the telegram received from the Advocate before the D.M. In the affidavit accompanying the application, however, numbermention was made about Mahabir having informed the Panchayat Adalat of the stay order or the fact that the order and the application was number being entertained by the Adalat.
It has been admitted by the High Court which has stayed proceedings also in this case.
Singh 1 The judgment or order should be served on the party personally, except in the following cases 1 prohibitive orders, the drawing up of which is number companypleted In order to justify companymittal for breach of a prohibitive order it is number necessary that the order should have been served upon the party against whom it has been granted, if it be proved that he had numberice of the order aliunde, as by telegram, or newspaper report, or otherwise, and knew that it was intended to be enforced, or if he companysented to the order, or if he was present in Court when the order Was pronounced, or hen the motion was made, although he left before the order was pronounced.
S. R. Chari, M. K. Ramamurthi, Vineet Kumar and Shyamala Pappu, for the appellants.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.112 of 1965.
But numberwithstanding my informing the Panchayat Adalat of that, I am number getting any hearing there, and when an application is made there, it is number entertained.
Contempt Case No.
On December 13, 1963, a numberice was issued to the five members of the Panchayat to assemble on December 25, 1963, and hear the case.
passed by the High Court.
No application dated December 21, 1963, which was number accepted by the Nyaya Panchayat, has been produced.
1 and 3, and Rs.
Affidavits were filed in the High Court by Baldeo Prasad, pairokar of Mahabir, Burma Prasad, the Sarpanch, and Mahabir, and statements of Phagu Prasad and Bunna Prasad were recorded on oath.
On May 21, 1964, Mahabir filed an application under ss.
P. Goyal, V. C. Prasar and S. P. Singh for respondent No.
On December 23, 1963, Mahabir submitted an application in the Court of Shri R. Singh, S.D.M., Deoria, alleging that writ petition has been admitted and a stay order has been issued.
The High Court disbelieved the explanation of the Panchas given before it because numbermention of these was made in the order sheet dated December 25, 1963.
P. Rana, for respondent No.
The case was adjourned to December 25, 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court adjudging the five appellants guilty of companytempt of companyrt and sentencing each of them to pay a fine of Rs.
Apparently he did number take any further action till December 26, 1963.
But as the numberice against Shri Srivastava has been discharged by the High Court, we need number give any further details about his various orders, On December 25, 1963, the Nyaya Panchayat met and proceeded to hear the case.
The relevant facts are these.
On September 10, 1963, the Nyaya Panchayat assembled and evidence was led before it.
Today, the 25th December, 1963, Mahabir has made an applica tion to the Court and signed it before it.
The High Court held that the five appellants had disobeyed an order of stay passed by it staying proceedings pending before the Nyaya Panchayat, Jokha Khas, District Deoria.
On October 11, 1963, Mahabir, accused, made an application under s. 85 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, to S.D.M., Deoria, to transfer the proceedings on the ground that the companyplainant Yashoda was father of Bunna Prasad, Sarpanch of Nyaya Panchayat, Jokha Khas.
On November 28, 1963, the D.M. rejected this application.
Hence judgment shall be given on 25 12 63.
This fact was denied and the High Court seems number to have relied on this fact in its judgment.
1 and the members of the Bench, Opposite Parties Nos.
