http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DIBAKAR SATPATHY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGESOF THE HIGH COURT OF ORI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/1961

BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

CITATION:  1961 AIR 1315            1962 SCR  (1) 326

ACT: Contempt of Court--Circular directing magistrates to  ignore decision of High Court--If amounts to contempt.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant an Under Secretary to the Board  of  Revenue, circulated to the District Magistrates, the opinions of  the Legal   Remembrance  and  the  Advocate  General   with   an endorsement  directing  that a procedure  contrary  to  that indicated  by the High Court, be followed "until the  matter is  carried  to  the High Court in some case,  so  that  the confusion  created by the Orissa High Court decision A  I.R. 1951 Orissa 40 might be set at rest". Held,  that the appellant was clearly guilty of contempt  of Court.  He gave a direction to the Magistrates to ignore the decision  of the High Court even though that was binding  on them.    This   was  a  flagrant   interference   with   the administration of justice by courts.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL   APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.  2  of 1960. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated February  19,  1958, of the Orissa High  Court  in  Original Criminal Misc.  Case No. 8 of 1957. A.V.  Viswanatha Sastri, H. R. Khanna and T. M. Sen,  for the appellant. H.   V.  Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, B.   M. Patnaik, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar  Nath, for respondent No. 1. 1961.  March 14.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR,  J.-The appellant who, at the relevant time,  was Under  Secretary to the Board of Revenue, Orissa,  has  been admonished  for  contempt of court and directed to  pay  the costs  of the proceedings before the High Court  of  Orissa. The  occasion  for the institution of  contempt  proceedings against the appellant 327 was  the circulation of the view of the  Legal  Remembrancer

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

and the Advocate,-General to the District Magistrates of the Northern Division of Orissa dated January 19, 1955, in which the following endorsement appears:               "I  am  directed  to  enclose  copies  of  the               opinions of the Legal Remembrancer and of  the               Advocate  General  and  to say  that  the  Law               Department  are  of opinion  that  no  special               authorization   is   necessary   to    empower               Magistrates  to take cognizance under  section               20  of the Cattle Trespass Act.  This  may  be               followed  until the matter is carried  to  the               High Court in some case, so that the confusion               created  by  the Orissa  High  Court  decision               reported  in All India Reporter  1951  Orissa,               page 40 might be set at rest." This endorsement bears the signature of the appellant. After  the  attention  of the High Court was  drawn  to  the aforesaid  endorsement  it caused notices to be  issued  not only to the Under Secretary to the Board of Revenue but also to  the Legal Remembrancer of Orissa to show cause way  they should  not be committed for contempt., Both of them  showed cause.   The High Court absolved the Legal Remembrancer  but convicted  the  appellant  and admonished  him,  as  already stated.  It may be mentioned that both of them had  tendered apologies  to  the High Court.  Even so, we think  that  the appellant was rightly found guilty of contempt of court  and admonished  as  well  as required to pay the  costs  of  the proceedings. The point on which the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer was sought  was whether a Magistrate authorised by the  District Magistrate to take cognisance of offences under s. 190, Code of  Criminal  Procedure,  can be regarded  as  a  Magistrate authorised by the District Magistrate as contemplated by  s. 20  of the Cattle Trespass Act.  In the case referred to  in the endorsement of the appellant, the Orissa High Court  had taken  the  view following the decision in  Raghu  Singh  v. Abdul  Wahab  (1)  that  authorisation  is  necessary.   The decision in Raghu Singh v. Abdul Wahab (1) was (1)  (1896) I.L.R. 23,Cal. 442. 328 dissented  from  in Budhan Mahto v. Issur Singh (1)  and  it does not appear that this fact was brought to the notice  of the  Orissa High Court.  The Legal Remembrancer to whom  the matter was referred submitted a note which, according to the High  Court, was "something ambiguous and did not deal  with all  questions--consequential and ancillary".  In  spite  of that the appellant, in his endorsement, gave a direction  to the  Magistrates  to ignore the decision of the  High  Court even though that was binding on them.  We have not the least doubt that such a direction is a flagrant interference  with the administration of justice by courts and a clear contempt of court.  Upon this view we dismiss the appeal.                                         Appeal dismissed.