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

PETITIONER: MAJOR R. S. MURGAI (RETD.)

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAJOR P. N. KAUSHIK (RETD.) & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/10/1979

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1980 AIR  107            1980 SCR  (1) 936  1980 SCC  (1)  10

ACT:      Contempt of  Court  Act,  s.  2(c)-Written  submissions filed by  one of  the parties  pursuant to the directions of the court  after  the  Judgment  was  reserved.  If  private communication tending  to interfere  with the  due course of justice.

HEADNOTE:      When one  of the  parties to  a case  pursuant  to  the directions of the court, makes written submissions after the Judgment was  reserved, such  submissions cannot  be  called private communication  to the  Judge. They cannot be said to have prejudiced, interfered with or tended to interfere with the due  course of justice within the meaning of s. 2(c)(ii) of the  Contempt of Court Act. These submissions formed part of the record. [937 B-D]      In the  instant case  in his  counter  affidavit  filed after the  Judgment was  reserved the respondent stated that he was  filing the  statements pursuant to the directions of the Company Judge. The High Court was justified in declining to issue a notice for contempt against the respondents. [937 A-E]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 427 of 1978.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  17-10-1978 of  the Delhi High Court in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 7/78.      Appellant in person.      K.N. Bhat for Respondent No. 1      R.P.  Bhatt,   R.B.  Datar   and  Girish   Chandra  for Respondent 2.      P.G. Gokhale,  B.R. Aggarwal,  Jenendra  Lal  and  M.S. Diwan for Respondent No. 3.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      FAZAL ALI, J. This is an appeal against an order passed by the  Delhi  High  Court  refusing  to  initiate  contempt proceedings against  the  respondents.  It  appears  that  a contempt matter  was pending  before a  Single Judge,  Delhi High Court  which was  heard at  length and the judgment was

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

reserved  on  the  9th  December,  1977.  The  judgment  was actually delivered  on 28-4-1978  and in  between these  two dates  certain   written  submissions   were  made   by  the respondents to  the Court  which the  appellant describes in his petition as private communications 937 to the Company Judge. The respondent P.N. Kaushik in para 36 of the counter-affidavit has made a specific allegation that at the  time of reserving the judgment the Company Judge had directed the  parties to  submit their  written  submissions regarding  the  points  at  issue  before  the  judgment  is delivered. The  submissions in  question were  submitted  on various dates  i.e. 12-12-77  by Major  Kaushik, 23-1-78 and 15-2-78 by  the Director-General  of Resettlement.  As these submissions were  made in  pursuance of  the  order  of  the Court, they  cannot be  held to be private communications to the Company  Judge in  order to  decide the  case. As  these documents were  filed before  the Court under the directions of the  Court itself,  it cannot  be said  by an  stretch of imagination that  these documents  prejudiced, interfered or tended to  interfere with  the due  course of justice within the meaning  of Section  2(c) (ii)  and therefore, would not constitute criminal  contempt within  the meaning of section 2(c) of  the Contempt  of Court  Act. These submissions form part of  the record  and, therefore, there is no question of their  being  regarded  as  private  communications  from  a litigant to  a Judge.  On the contrary, the Director-General of Resettlement  was appointed  as the  administrator by the Court itself  and being  an officer  of the court, he was at liberty to  make submissions  to the court in respect of the case  in  question.  The  High  Court  therefore  was  fully justified in  declining to  issue any  notice  for  contempt against the  respondents on  the submissions  filed  by  the appellant.  We   would  refrain   from  making  any  comment regarding the  merits of  the appeal which the appellant has filed before  the Division  Bench against  the order  of the Company Judge dated 28th April, 1978, which we understand is pending hearing  before the Division Bench. The appeal filed by the  appellant in  this Court is totally misconceived and is rejected.      In the  circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. P.B.R.    Appeal dismissed. 938