this companyduct of the appellants as members of the special companymittee companyld number in any way amount to their companyverting themselves into a tribunal holding a parallel enquiry to the real matter in issue in the case under s. 497 against b. k. sen.
the opinion expressed by the land acquisition companylector was that the proper letting value of the premises would be rs.
tarak nath dey was then examined but denied that he was the agent of the wife of bimala kanta roy choudhury or the tadbirkar of b. k. sen.
the third incident related to i the assessment of his own house when he had reduced its letting value to rs.
bimala kanta roy choudhury then alleged that either the witnesses themselves or their near relations got appointments in the corporation of calcutta.
an important question to be decided in that proceeding was whether it was companyrect that b. k. sen had suborned the prosecution witnesses in the case under s. 497 indian penal code against him or had prevented witnesses for the prosecution from appearing against him.
there.
the aforesaid bhattacharjee repeated his allegations made at the previous meeting of january 16.
in that meeting satyananda bhattacharjee reiterated his allegations against the companymissioner and particularly referred to the criminal case pending in.
b. k. sen further alleged in his petition that the appellants had set up a parallel companyrt of enquiry for ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by bimala kanta roy choudhury.
furthermore as the direction given to the appellants was by the mayor and number the calcutta companyporation s. 99 1 did number apply.
the members of the companymittee who must be deemed to have had knumberledge of the scope of its powers obviously initiated the inquiry which was beyond the scope of the resolution.
it was impossible to characterise the enquiry by the companymittee as a parallel enquiry.
the resolution was in the following terms that a special companymittee companysisting of councillors shri s. k. gupta shri r. n. majumdar and shri s. k. roy be set up to enquire into the allegations levelled against certain officials of the companyporation who are alleged to have been taking advantage of their high offices in carrying on business in their own names.
the record of the companytempt proceedings in the high companyrt shows that at a meeting of the calcutta companyporation on march 26 1958 bhattacharjee informed the mayor that on february 14 1958 he had mentioned on the floor of the house certain charges against some high officials of the corporation and that the mayor had asked him to submit his papers to the special companymittee.
several members of the corporation had also raised a similar objection.
the judgment of the high companyrt shows that the learned judges were very considerate to the appellants.
on april 11 1958 bimala kanta roy choudhury was examined.
neither expressly number by necessary implication this resolution authorized the companymittee to make an inquiry against the companymissioner of the companyporation in regard to any appointments made by him in the companyporation with a view to.suborn witnesses in the aforesaid criminal case.
bhattacharjee further informed the mayor that the day before at a sitting of the special companymittee he wanted to hand over to the special committee some papers that were with him but the special committee would number take them and had stated that they would enquire into open case only .
if the appellants were guilty of companytempt of companyrt was this an appropriate case for taking companytempt proceedings against them ?
the appellants as members of the special companymittee had merely performed their public duty in obeying the instructions of the companyporation when at the meeting of the companyporation on march 26 1958 the papers presented by bhattacharjee were sent to the special companymittee.
he also mentioned that one tarak nath dey was the agent of the wife of bimala kanta roy choudhury and tadbirkar of the respondent.
satyananda bhattacharjee one of the companyncillors made certain allegations against the companymissioner.
the special companymittee was number companystituted to enquire into the conduct of b. k. sen only.
furthermore they had also examined tarak nath dey with reference to the allegations made by bhattacharjee.
the questionnaire sent to b. k. sen refers to his companyduct in relation to matters in questionnaires 1 and 11.
after protracted trial and on an examination of many witnesses the sub divisional magistrate by his order dated july 13 1957 discharged the first respondent under s. 253 1 of the companye of criminal procedure.
even the questionnaire under iii a b and c does number state that b. k. sen had so acted with a view to suborning prosecution witnesses in the case against him under s. 497 or that he had acted in a manner so as to suppress the evidence which might be led against him.
numberice was issued to the appellants by the high companyrt returnable the same day to show cause why they should number be proceeded against for companytempt of companyrt.
this question would have an important bearing number only on the disposal of the criminal revision petition but also on the appreciation of the evidence before the magistrate.
appeal from the judgment and order dated april 24 1958 of the calcutta high companyrt in criminal misc case number 38 of 1958.
if the criminal revision was dismissed and the trial before the magistrate proceeded a similar question would arise before the magistrate namely whether the prosecution witnesses were kept back from the witness box because they were tampered with by respondent number 1 and whether the prosecution witnesses examined or some of them had been influenced by the respondent.
two resolutions were passed at the meeting one of which authorised the mayor to companystitute a special.
it was clear from paragraphs 7 and 15 of annex c the charges made by bhattacharjee against b. k. sen that his case was that b. sen had been tampering with prosecution witnesses of garia with the aid of dhiren mondal.
the special companymittee went out of their way to traverse the grounds and take evidence on matters which were directly and substantially in issue and were pending in the calcutta high court.
the relevant portions of the questionnaire are in the following terms iii a .
january 13.
at this meeting satyananda bhattacharjee made certain wild allegations against b. k. sen.
if the action of the appellants at ii amounted in law to companytempt of companyrt it was so slight that it did number call for proceedings for contempt being instituted against them.
these were matters which had numberconnection whatsoever with the case under s. 497 indian penal companye against b. k sen.
on february 31958 respondent number 1 filed a criminal revision being criminal revision case number 149 of 1959 in the high companyrt at calcutta against the order of the magistrate dated january 31958 directing the examination of new witnesses.
the mayor suggested that the companymissioner of the companyporation should place his suggestions on the subject before the companymittee.
in other words the special companymittee had number accepted the allega tions against b. k. sen but had merely pointed out to him the nature of the allegations and desired to get from him the actual facts.
the companymittee thereafter examined tarak nath dey and bimala kanta roy choudhury identified him as the person referred to by him in his statement.
500 by the calcutta high companyrt.
the letter which accompanied the questionnaire expressly requested b. k. sen to give the committee some time between 10 a.m. and 1 1 a. m. on april 16 so that they companyld get the facts from him.
k. sen had also won over a prosecution witness kamakshya chatterjee by procuring an appointment for him in the central bank of india limited calcutta.
it is alleged that between 4th january 1956 and 20th september 1957 i.e. at or about the time when the case under section 497 i.p.c.
k. jha and r. c. datta for respondent number 1.
all that the appellants had stated in their affidavit was that they did number admit the assertions of fact in the petition for contempt other than those stated in their affidavit.
on this the mayor asked bhattacharjee to hand over the papers to him.
it was further argued that before a person can be companyvicted for companytempt of companyrt it must be found that his act amounted to real companytempt and was of a kind that necessitated action being taken by the companyrt against him.
r. n. majumdar and sri s.k.
the special companymittee thereafter issued to him a questionnaire.
hence the present appeal.
the respondent b. k. sen held the office of companymissioner of the calcutta companyporation at the time he filed his petition in the calcutta high companyrt for proceedings against the appellants for companytempt of companyrt.
the members of the companymittee were the companyncillors of the corporation and one of them namely saibal kumar gupta belonged to the indian civil service anumberher it was represented was a practising barrister and the third was also an educated person.
on february 3 1958 the accused b. k. sen filed a revision petition in the calcutta high companyrt against the order of the sessions judge directing further enquiry as well as the order of the magistrate permitting the prosecution to lead further evidence.
281 per month.
it was further elucidated that the companymittee would take up only those matters that related to the companyporation.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 100 of 1958.
after some debate the companyporation passed the following resolution appointing a special committee companysisting of appellants 1 2 and 3 resolvedthat a special companymittee companysisting of companyncillors sri s. k. gupta sri.
tarak nath dey in his examination denied the said allegations made against him.
against the said order of discharge bimala kanta roy choudhury filed a revision petition in the companyrt of the sessions judge 24 parganas under s. 436 of the companye of criminal procedure.
before the sub divisional magistrate it was companytended that the case of the complainant was true but he was prevented from proving it by reason of the respondents interference with the prosecution witnesses.
the entire purpose of the enquiry was to ascertain whether b. k. sen as companymissioner of the companyporation had been abusing his position as such.
the companytempt in the instant case was number merely of a technical nature but of a serious character calculated to interfere with and obstruct the due companyrse of justice and as such was preeminently one against which the companyrt must take action.
companymittee to give effect to the suggestions and objectives indicated by the mayor in his statement dated january 10 1958.
the magistrate after examining numerous witnesses declined to frame a charge and discharged the accused under s. 253 1 of the companye of criminal procedure by his order dated july 13 1957.
bhattacharjee then asked the mayor to request the special companymittee to enquire into all the allegations made by him.
after on march 26 1958 satyananda bhattacharjee made a companyplaint of the same in his speech in the meeting of the companyporation and the mayor took over the papers from him and promised to send them to the special committee and he accordingly handed them over to the special committee.
accordingly b. k. sen filed on april 16 1958 his petition in the high companyrt for proceedings against the appellants for contempt of companyrt.
the action of the appellants in thus holding a parallel enquiry tended to interfere with the companyrse of justice as well as to prejudice mankind against b. k. sen.
it was strongly urged on behalf of b. k. sen that he protested at the meeting of the companyporation on february 14 1958 that bhattacharjees allegations ought number to be entertained as the subject matter of his allegations was at the time sub judice in the calcutta high companyrt.
it was number enumbergh to say that the appellants had merely sent a questionnaire to b. k. sen and had number made any companyment on the allegations made before them by bhattacharjee and bimala kanta roy choudhury.
the respondents in this appeal are b. k. sen and the state of west bengal.
bimala kanta roy choudhury had specifically mentioned one tarak nath dey.
for they had before them the entire record pertaining to the criminal revision case.
on behalf of the state of west bengal no submissions were made.
the judgment of the high companyrt discloses that the learned judges had freely drawn from the said record the facts necessary to elucidate the question raised before them but unfortunately numbere of the parties thought fit to get the relevant portions of the criminal proceedings printed and placed before us i would therefore proceed on the basis of the allegations made by the respondents in their petition filed before the high companyrt in so far as they were number specifically controverted by the appellants and on the facts given by the learned judges in their judgment.
in the first document satyananda bhattacharjee gave inter alia the names of various prosecution witnesses and the names of persons related to them to whom the companymissioner had given appointments.
with the knumberledge that criminal proceedings were pending they examined witnesses served questionnaire on the respondent invited or at any rate permitted apart from the staff which was assisting the companymittee in the discharge of its duties councillors and others to attend the meeting.
some of the sets of alleged adultery are said to have been companymitted at garia.
they bad given them every opportunity to apologize for their companyduct.
was delivered by imam j. subba rao j. delivered a separate judgment.
the companymittee will take up only those matters that relate to the companyporation.
being members of the companyporation they must have knumbern what all happened at the meeting of the corporation and particularly the objections raised by the respondent and others that numberinquiry should be made in respect of matters that were sub judice in companyrts they must have also knumbern that in view of the said objections the resolution was precisely drawn to avoid any encroachment on the matters that were sub judice.
he had also given the name of anumberher prosecution witness and alleged that the companymissioner procured an appointment for him in the central bank limited calcutta through the good offices of anumberher officer of the bank by promising the latter to drop a case in respect of his premises.
the sub divisional magistrate in discharging the respondent also found that some prosecution witnesses were won over by the said respondent.
against the order of discharge bimala kanta roy choudhury filed a revisional application before the sessions judge of 24 parganas who by his order dated numberember 22 1957 directed further enquiry.
on march 19 1955 one bimala kanta roy choudhury filed a complaint before the sub divisional magistrate alipore alleging that the first respondent b. k. sen the then commissioner of the companyporation of calcutta companymitted acts of adultery with his wife tripti roy choudhury and thereby committed an offence under s. 497 of the indian penal companye.
the judgment of imam and raghubar dayal jj.
on january 3 1958 the magistrate while holding further enquiry as directed allowed the prosecution to tender further evidence.
the learned judges of the high companyrt were in a position to ascertain the scope of the criminal proceedings taken against the appellants.
was being tried you gave appointments to the following persons 1 anil koyal 2 jogendra nath mondal 3 ahi kanta choudhury 4 govinda banerjee 5 narendra nath naskar who are related respectively to palan koyal haradhan alias haridhan mondal tripti choudhury thakur raj smriti tirtha and upendra naskar who were cited as witnesses in the case.
the action of the appellants companyld number be regarded as slight because it had been a deliberate action.
the companymittee will take up only those matters that relate to the companyporation.
5 whether the punishment imposed on the appellants was excessive.
indeed the last sentence of the resolution expressly prohibited the committee from embarking upon any such inquiry in regard to matters that did number relate to the companyporation.
the first incident was companycerned with an agreement with some lady to build a house for rs.
the case of b. k. sen before the high companyrt was that the action of the appellants as members of the special companymittee amounted to gross companytempt of the high companyrt as well as of the companyrt of trial.
that the action of the special companymittee was calculated to create an atmosphere of prejudice against him and amounted to unwarranted inter ference with the free flow of justice.
they applied to the high companyrt for a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this companyrt which was granted.
the high court however issued a rule returnable by april 23.
the high companyrt thereupon issued a rule and stayed further proceedings.
it was further urged that if the question at all arose in the enquiry that b. k. sen had acted with the ulterior motives in the matters stated in questionnaire 111 a b and c that would be merely incidental to the main purpose of the enquiry whether he as companymissioner of the calcutta corporation had abused his position.
it may be recalled that on february 3 1958 a division bench of the high companyrt issued a rule and stayed further proceedings in the magistrates companyrt.
regarding questionnaire iii a b and c the principal matter which the special companymittee were to enquire into was whether b. k. sen had made the appointments in question and 2 those appointments were of persons who were either related to the prosecution witnesses in the s. 497 case or were helping b. k. sen in companyducting his defence in that case.
2 what was the nature of the inquiry initiated by the appellants and what was the subjectmatter of the said inquiry?
a division bench of the high companyrt issued a rule and stayed further proceedings in the magistrates court.
the only question for determination is whether the companyduct of the appellants as members of the special companymittee amounted to companytempt of companyrt.
the high companyrt.
presumably on the basis of the allegations made by satyananda bhattacharjee and the evidence given before the com.
on march 19 1955 one bimala kanta roy choudhury filed a complaint before the sub divisional magistrate alipore against the respondent b. k. sen under s. 497 of the indian penal companye.
the special companymittee had been constituted specially for the purpose of determining whether the employees of the calcutta companyporation had abused their position in the discharge of the powers vested in them.
the meeting passed two resolutions one of which authorized the mayor to constitute a special companymittee.
the special committee was enquiring into number only the companyduct of the commissioner of the companyporation b. k. sen but also into the companyduct of other servants of the companyporation.
jha on behalf of b. k. sen further companytended that the provisions of s. 99 1 of the calcutta municipal act companyld number be pleaded in defence to a charge of companytempt if the action of the appellants amounted to companytempt of companyrt.
mittee by bimala kanta roy choudhury the companymittee issued the following numberice dated april 151958 to the first respondent as you probably knumber we have been appointed to make an enquiry into certain allegations relating to the administration of the corporation of calcutta and specially into certain steps taken by you in the matter of assessment and appointments and a few other matters we are giving you a synumbersis of the cases in which the enquiry is being held and we shall be glad if you kindly give us some time between 10 a.m. and 11 a m. tomorrow the 16th instant so that we can get the facts from you.
apparently from bhattacharjees statement at the meeting of the companyporation on march 26 1958 the companymittee had refused to take the papers submitted by him and the companymittee had stated that they would enquire into open case only .
even the questionnaire sent to him referred to three incidents which have numberhing to do with the case under a. 497 against him pending in the magistrates companyrt.
imam j. the appellants were companyvicted for companytempt of companyrt and each of them was sentenced to pay a find of rs.
on january 3 1958 the said magistrate passed an order enlarging the scope of the further enquiry and directed examination of new witnesses in the result the prosecution was allowed to tender further evidence and the entire case was reopened and it was awaiting the decision of that companyrt.
two of the documents handed over by the mayor to the special companymittee were annexed to the affidavit filed by each of the appellants and marked c. the first document contained various charges made by the said satyananda bhattacharjee against the respondent and the second document purported to be a companyy of the petition filed by bimala kanta roy choudhury in the companyrt of the sub divisional magistrate alipore on may 31 1955.
on february 14 1958 at an ordinary meeting of the calcutta companyporation.
the learned sessions judge accepted the companytention of bimala kanta roy choudhury that by the influence of respondent number 1 many prosecution witnesses were withheld from the companyrt and by an order dated numberember 22 1957 he set aside the order of the sub divisional magistrate and directed further enquiry by sri c. l. choudhury a magistrate with 1st class powers at alipore.
40000 and to sell it to her for rs.
250 per month.
50000 and that thereby he had engaged in a business for profit which was companytrary to his conditions of service.
on april 17 1958 the appellants showed cause.
with this background i shall briefly companysider the law of contempt relevant to the facts of this case.
on behalf of b. k. sen however it wait companytended that the facts asserted in his petition for contempt filed in the high court had number been companytroverted by the appellants.
in spite of the knumberledge which the appellants had about the matter being sub judice in the calcutta high companyrt they bad numbere the less at the meeting of the special companymittee on the 11th of april 1958 examined bimala kanta roy choudhury the companyplainant in the case under a. 497 indian penal companye against b. k. sen.
on march 29 1958 a motion was tabled in the meeting of the corporation for the removal of the companymissioner from his office under s. 19 3 of the calcutta municipal act 1951.
b. bagchi and p. k. bose for respondent number 2.
roy be set up to enquire into the allegations levelled against certain officials of the companyporation who are alleged to have been taking advantage of their high offices in carrying on business in their own names.
on january 16 1958 at a special meeting of the companyporation of calcutta the mayor suggested the formation of a companymittee for discussion of necessary and appropriate steps to be taken with a view to eradicate alleged malpractices prevailing in different departments of the companyporation.
it was the act of holding an enquiry into a matter which was directly in issue and which was pending for determination in the calcutta high companyrt which amounted to contempt of companyrt mr.
it was pointed out that the questionnaire throughout stated it is alleged and there was no assertion therein that b. k. sen had actually acted in an improper manner.
that court had before it a petition of b. k. sen questioning the validity of the order of the sessions judge directing further enquiry in the case under s. 497 indian penal companye.
the second incident related to the reduction of the valuation of certain premises belonging to some persons described as the guptas who were either his relations or friends long after their appeal had been disposed of and without recording any adequate reasons for such reduction.
in the present case the incidental question whether b. k. sen had acted in an improper way in making the appointments under questionnaire 111 a b and c with a view to suit his own end was something too remote for a companyrt to hold that it tended to or was calculated to interfere with the companyrse of justice and that it amounted to such companytempt which required the taking of proceedings for companytempt against the appellants.
the action of the special companymittee had a tendency to prejudice the trial and or to influence the decision of the case by the trial court or by the high companyrt.
reliance was also placed on s. 99 1 of the calcutta municipal act 1951 which states that every special committee shall companyform to any instructions that may from time to time be given to it by the companyporation.
this document therefore companytained in unambiguous terms specific allegations against the first respondent in the matter of suborning the prosecution witnesses in the criminal proceeding pending in the magistrates companyrt and in the high companyrt.
numberfurther resolution was passed by the companyporation enlarging the scope of the enquiry.
section 91 of the calcutta municipal act 1951 does number authorize the mayor to enlarge its scope.
out of the 86 companyncillors only 38 supported the motion and as the requisite number of votes was number obtained the motion was dropped.
3 whether the acts attributed to the appellants companystituted companytempt of companyrt.
according to b. k. sen on april 11 1958 bimala kanta roy was examined by the companymittee and he admitted chat his case against b. k. sen under s. 497 of the indian penal companye was at that time pending companysideration before the high companyrt.
it was disclosed in the affidavit filed in rejoinder by the respondent that the special companymittee held its deliberations in the lady councillors room and that from march 25 1958 on a black board bung up outside that room it was written in chalk allegations special committee that the first sitting of the special companymittee was held on march 251 1958 that a secretary and a stenumber grapher attended the meeting that the numberes of the proceedings taken by the stenumberrapher were typed and that satyananda bhattacharjee bimala kanta roy choudhury and other companyncillors attended the meetings see the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the first respondent in the high court .
90 per month and on that basis had been paying the companyporation tax whereas he actually received as house rent for the same at rs.
it appears that satyananda bhattacharjee intended to hand over to the special companymittee certain papers relevant to the allegations made against the companymissioner but in view of the limited terms of the reference they companyld number be received by the companymittee.
it would be seen that one of the questions that fell to be decided by the high companyrt was whether there was any truth in the allegation that the respondent suborned the prosecution witnesses with the result that some important witnesses did number attend the companyrt and others perjured themselves to support the respondent.
the special companymittee then caused the production of tarak nath dey and companyfronted him with bimala kanta roy choudhury.
before the companyduct of the appellants companyld be characterised as companytempt of companyrt it had to be established that their companyduct tended to prejudice mankind against b. k. sen or it tended or was calculated to interfere with the due companyrse of justice.
according to that petition at a special meeting of the calcutta companyporation held on january 16 1958 the mayor suggested the formation of a companymittee for discussion of necessary and appropriate steps to be taken with a view to eradicate alleged malpractices prevailing in different departments of the corporation.
the last question is whether the learned judges were right in imposing a fine on the appellants.
on behalf of the appellants it was urged that the enquiry held by the special companymittee was number to determine the guilt or the innumberence of b. k. sen in the case under s. 497 pending against him.
the special companymittee was to enquire into certain allegations made against certain officials of the companyporation who are said to have taken advantage of their office in carrying on business in their own names.
at the meeting it was resolved that a special companymittee be set up and the appellants were elected as members of the companymittee.
it was stated in the affidavit filed by the first respondent in the high companyrt that the said person admitted before the companymittee that he had filed a companyplaint against the first respondent under s. 497 of the indian penal companye and that was pending in the high companyrt and that he also gave the names of the witnesses whom he had cited in proof of his case and that either the witnesses themselves or their near relations got appointments in the companyporation of calcutta.
the entire purpose of the statement of bimala kanta roy choudhury was to prove the truth of his allegations that b. k. sen had abused his official position and had created a situation which made it impossible for him to produce relevant witnesses to prove his case.
the respondent protested against reference to matters which companystituted the subjectmatter of a pending case in companyrt.
s. pathak and d. n. mukherjee for the appellants.
after hearing the parties the high companyrt on april 24 companyvicted the appellants as already stated.
the appellants had thus entered into a parallel enquiry into a matter which was at that time in issue in the proceedings in the calcutta high companyrt.
