The appellant was, however, found to be guilty of companytempt of companyrt because it was he who had handed over the offending matter to the press for publication in the newspaper.
Thereupon on 6th June, 1967 they presented an application direct to the then Minister for Law, Shri Hasibur Rahman, who directed that the Law Secretary should examine the matter and report and in the meanwhile the District Magistrate was requested to take two months adjournment of the case and also send the case diary with his report.
Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey filed revision petitions against the order of the companymitting magistrate, but the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr is per order dated May 5, 1967.
A revision was accordingly filed, which is still pending before the High Court.
It was observed that the application for withdrawal of the prosecution amounted to an abuse and improper interference in the numbermal companyrse of justice.
After the dismissal of the revision petition, an application was filed by the Assistant District Prosecutor on September 18, 1967 in the Court of the learned magistrate for withdrawal of the case against Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey oil the ground that it was inexpedient for State and public policy to prosecute them.
Arjun Pandey thrust Saif in the chest of Dwarka Paswan, as a result of which he died on the spot.
The matter was then examined thoroughly by the officers of the Law Department and in his numbere, dated 30th August, 1967, the Law Secretary recommended against withdrawal of the prosecution pointing out that there was a prima facie case and justice demanded that it Should be finished Out in Court.
Kedar Prasad also exhorted others to assult Dwarka Paswan.
Shri Hasibur RaHman thus by misuse of his official position and power unnecessarily interfered with the administration of justice in a serious case of rioting with murder.
One of the revision petitions was filed by the State of Bihar and the other was filed by one Abani Kumar Mandal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 12th August, 1968 of the Patna High Court in Original Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
Allegation No.
After hearing the companynsel for the companyplainant and others, the companymitting magistrate dismissed the said application oil October 6, 1967.
The numberification relating to the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry along with the schedule companytaining the different allegations was published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary dated March 12, 1968.
A petition for withdrawal.
It was urged that the publication of allegation No.
The learned judge who dealt with the application held that numbercase for companytempt of companyrt had been proved against 22 out of 25 persons.
was accordingly filed on 18th September, 1967, but was rejected by the trial companyrt.
Both the revision petitions were admitted by the High Court on November 30, 1967.
No charge sheet was submitted against Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey.
The appellant was impleaded as respondent No.
Shri Hasibur Rahman, however ignored the advice of the District Magistrate as welt as of the Law Secretary and ordered on 10th September, 1967 that the case should be withdrawn.
During the companyrse of companymitment proceedings, the companymitting magistrate ordered that Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey be summoned for May 15, 1966 as accused.
Application dated March 25, 1968 was thereafter filed by Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey for initiating companytempt of companyrt proceedings against 25 persons, including the State of Bihar, the Chief, Minister and Ministers of Bihar, the Chief Secretary of the Bihar Government as well as Shri Subhash Chandra Sarkar, Editor and Shri Awadesh Kumar Tiwari, printer and publisher of the Searchlight.
On 17th August, 1967, the District Magistrate sent his report opposing withdrawal cf.
One of the persons against whom inquiry was ordered was Shri Hasibur Rahman who had held the office of Minister during the period from March 16, 1967 to January 28, 1968.
The police on the basis of that report investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet for offences under sections 148 and 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. against a number of persons.
Allegation No.
J 4 which was the subject of inquiry against Shri Hasibur Rahman was asunder Shri Kedar Prasad Sinha and Shri Arjun Pandey were facing prosecution along with nine others in a serious case of rioting with murder which was pending before the Munsif Magistrate, Jamui.
The said numberification along with the schedule of allegations was published in the Searchlight of Patna in issues dated March 13, March 14 and March 15 of 1968.
Two revision petitions were filed against the above order dated October 6, 1967.
the case.
During the pendency of the above mentioned criminal revision petitions, the Governor of Bihar as per numberification dated March L864 SupCI/72 12, 1968 appointed a Commission of Inquiry companysisting of Shri T. L. Venkatarama Aiyer, retired judge of the Supreme Court, under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 Act 60 of 1952 to inquire into a number of charges against 14 persons who had earlier held the offices of Chief Minister and ministers in the State of Bihar.
The allegations which were the subject matter of the inquiry were set forth in the schedule annexed to the numberification.
An assault was then made upon Dwarka Paswan and he was surrounded.
The motive for the assault was stated to be that Lachho Paswan and Dwarka Paswan had voted against Kedar Prasad in the election to the office of Mukhia.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
30 of 1969.
30 of 1968.
On January 2, 1966 a report was lodged with the police by Lachho Paswan that when he and his brother Dwarka Paswan were going to Jamui market, Kedar Prasad respondent abused them.
Basudev Prasad Sinha and B. P. Jha, for the Appellant.
The same day the appellant, who was one of the ministers of Bihar, gave for publication to the press a companyy of the numberification, including the schedule of allegations.
J 4 relating to the withdrawal of case regarding Kedar Prasad Sinha was published in the issue of Searchlight dated March 14, 1968.
Even before the District Magistrates letter was diaries in the Law Department, Shri Hasibur Rahman called for the file directly from the dealing assistant and ordered that a telegram should be sent to the District Magistrate to take further adjournment for a fortnight.
J 4 related to a matter which was the subject matter of criminal revision petitions in the High Court and had the result of interfering with the companyrse of justice and prejudicing the mankind against the two in applicants.
3 in the application.
editor as also the printer and publisher of the Searchlight too were found guilty because of the publication of the news item in the aforesaid paper.
Thereupon Shri Hasibur Rahman directed that a revision should be filed in the High Court against the refusal of the trial companyrt to allow withdrawal of the case.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KhannaJ. This is an appeal by special leave by Sammbhu Nath Jha who along with two others has been found by the Patna High Court to be guilty of companytempt of companyrt.
In view of the fact that the companytempt, in the opinion of the High Court, was of a technical nature, the companytemners were let off with a warning.
It was held that Kedar Prasad and Arjun Pandey had been rightly summoned.
They filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr against their prosecution, which was dismissed.
