Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs S.M. Abdul Samad on 3 March, 1958
Equivalent citations: AIR1959PAT183, 1958(6)BLJR370, 1959CRILJ509, AIR 1959 PATNA 183, 1958 BLJR 370
JUDGMENT B.P. Jamuar, J.
1. This is the second occasion that the respondent S.M. Abdul Samad, has been stated to have committed contempt of Court.
2. On the last occasion, the District Judge of Patna had made a report to this Court in the month of January, 1955, and upon that report Abdul Samad was directed to show cause why a proceeding for contempt of Court should not be started against him. He appeared personally, and he was also then represented by an advocate of this Court. He then tendered an unqualified apology for what he had done, and in the circumstances this Court thought that the apology so tendered by him may be accepted, and the rule issued against Abdul Samad was, therefore, discharged.
3. On the present occasion, on a report submitted by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Patna dated 20-9-1957, to the District Judge of Patna, the District Judge his submitted to this Court another report dated the 21st/23rd September, 1957, for talcing action against Abdul Samad, On the report submitted by the District Judge, Abdul Samad was directed to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court. This order was on 12-11-1957.
On 12-2-1958, a petition was filed on behalf of the respondent through an advocate stating that in the circumstances enumerated in that petition, the proceeding taken against him should be dropped. Thereafter, on 28-2-1958, a supplementary petition on affidavit was filed by the respondent through another advocate expressing what he called an unqualified and unconditional apology and prayed that the proceeding against him may now be dropped.
When the matter was taken up for hearing this morning, the respondent appeared in person and stated that he was not represented by any lawyer. When asked by the Court, however, to state if he wished to say anything, he merely said that he had not committed any offence. On behalf of the State we have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader.
4. Now, the circumstances in which the respondent has been asked to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court may be shortly stated. One Bibi Najma had instituted a title suit, being No. 52 of 1952, in the Court of Munsif III, Patna, against Bibi Hamidan, who was the mother of the present respondent, for seeking partition of her eight annas share in an orchard.
The respondent was made a pro forma defendant in that suit. The suit was tried by the Additional Munsif IV, Patna, and it was decreed. From that decree, Bibi Hamidan and the respondent filed an appeal, which was numbered as Title Appeal 120 of 1954. This appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge, Patna, and ultimately dismissed. Then a second appeal was filed in this Court, and this appeal too was dismissed.
5. Bibi Hamidan thereafter instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 3 of 1956 in the Court of Munsif III, Patna. She had alleged in that suit that the decision of the previous suit in Title Suit No. 52 of 1952 was vitiated due to fraud and collusion and that, therefore, that decision should be set aside. It was further alleged that the deposition recorded by the Additional Munsif IV was wrongly recorded inasmuch as the deposition was not allowed to be read over, nor was it in fact read over.
It was further stated that the written argument which had been filed by her in the suit had not been considered and that tbe appellate court, namely, the court of the Additional District Judge, had "falsely suppressed the points which were urged before it'. According to the plaintiff, Bibi Hamidan, all this was done as the husband of Bibi Najma, namely, Shri Manzoor Hasan, Pleader, had exercised influence upon the courts and he had influenced the courts to decide in favour of his wife.
The trial court dismissed the suit and held that the allegations made by the plaintiff regarding the alleged fraud, collusion etc., were absurd to the extreme. Bibi Hamidan then preferred an appeal against that judgment, and this appeal was numbered as Title Appeal 198/47 of 1956.
6. This appeal was transferred for hearing to the Additional Subordinate Judge at whose Instance the present proceeding has arisen. During the pendency of this appeal, Bibi Hamidan the appellant died. She had left two sons, namely, Abdul Samad, the respondent, and one Abdul Wahab. Abdul Samad was already on the record as a pro forma respondent. On an application made by Abdul Samad and Abdul Wahab, they were substituted as appellants at one stage of the appeal, Bibi Najma, tbe respondent, however, raised a point to the effect that Bibi Hamidan had left a third son from her previous husband, and since that son had not been impleaded in this appeal, the appeal had abated to that extent. The appellate court took evidence on that point, and on the 19th June, 1957, passed an order in favour of the respondent.
7. The main appeal was then taken up fop hearing and eventually it was dismissed on 1-7- 1957. It appears that Abdul Samad himself arguted the appeal and had engaged no lawyer on his behalf. After the hearing of the appeal and be fore delivery of judgment, Abdul Samad took certain steps which are said to have amounted to gross contempt.
In course of the judgment, the appellate Court found that Abdul Samad was guilty of perjury and it therefore called upon him to snow cause why he should not be prosecuted under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. This order was passed on the same date on which the appeal had been dismissed by a separate order. In his show cause petition, Abdul Samad had given threats to the court and bad also cast aspersions upon the integrity of the court.
Then Abdul Samad was directed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, who had heard the appeal, to show cause why a report should not be made to the High Court for proceedings to be taken against him for contempt of Court. A notice was served unon Abdul Samad, but he did not appear personally to show cause.
8. Then it was that the Additional Subordinate Judge made a report to the District Judge stating facts .showing that Abdul Samad bad committed contempt of Court on various occasions, namely, when the Additional Munsif IV, Patna, was trying Title Suit No. 52 of 1952 and when the appellate court was hearing the Appeal No. 120 of 1954 arising out of the suit.
It is unnecessary to go into these facts any further for the reason that it was in respect of these matters that the first proceeding was started against Abdul Samad for contempt of Court in the year 1955 and in which the proceeding was dropped as he had offered an unqualified and unconditional apology.
9. The present proceeding now relates to matters which have taken place in the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Fatna, while he was hearing Tide Appeal No. 198 of 1956 arising out of Title Suit No. 3 of 1956 and immediately thereafter.
It will appear from the order-sheet of the appellate court that the substitution matter in the appeal, to which I have already made reference, was disposed of on 19-6-1957, and it was directed that the main appeal itself should be put up on the next day for hearing. Accordingly, on 20-8-1957, arguments in the appeal were heard and the appeal was adjourned to 30-6-1957, for judgment. On 21-6-1957, however, at about 10-15 A.M. while the court was in the midst of hearing another appeal, Abdul Samad appeared and said to the court that he wanted to file a petition.
The Additional Subordinate Judge stated in the order-sheet that the conduct of the appellant in disturbing the court while the court was engaged was not appreciated by him. On enquiry, however, Abdul Samad said that the petition which he wanted to file was in the nature of a written argument. The Additional Subordinate Judge then noted that as the appellant had argued his own appeal and as he had been allowed full latitude, and further as the Code of Civil Procedure did not warrant the filing of any written statement, and that too at the back of the other side, he could not accept that petition. Accordingly, the Additional Subordinate Judge refused to allow Abdul Samad to file his written statement.
Abdul Samad was, however, told, as appears in the order sheet, that if he wished to do so, he should move in the proper way and in the presence of the' other side.
10. Then, on the next day that is, on 22-6-1957, Abdul Samad appeared before the District Judge with a petition which he filed. In the first paragraph of that petition he stated that on a previous date, that is, on the 20th June, 1957, the Additional Subordinate Judge showed bias and prejudice against him and showed consideration for Md. Manzoor Hasan, Pleader, and he further alleged that without having heard the matter, the court had fixed the 30th June, 1957, for judgment in his title apneal which he wrongly numbered as Title Appeal No. 198 of 1956. The Additional Subordinate Judge accordingly in his report has stated that Abdul Samad had made derogatory remarks against him in that petition.
11. On 15-7-1957, Abdul Samad filed a petition in the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge which purports to be by way of showing cause against his prosecution under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The petition appears to have been badly drafted. I shall quote paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 of that petition. But before I do so, it is necessary to state certain facts. I have stated that in the appeal it was contended by the respondent, Bibi Najma, that Bibi Hamidan had a third son by a previous husband named A. Rah-man and that, therefore, since he had not been substituted, the appeal should be held to have abated to the extent of his share.
The appellants had resisted that contention by stating that there was no such son of Bibi Hamidan. The appellate court had accepted the contention of the respondent. In this connection Abdul Samad in his petition dated 15-7-1957, stated in paragraph 16 that the court had intentionally passed an order on false statement and intentionally given shelter to the respondent on false statement and by so doing it had caused Abdul Samad to suffer a damage of Rs. 2,000/-. The paragraph 17 is as follows:
"That your honour has taken a bribe and illegal gratification of Rs. 200/- from Md. Man-soor Hassan Pleader in order to give shelter to the false statement and knowingly to pass a decision on the said false statement and as such your honour refused to accept the petition filed by the petitioner which was filed in the court of D. J. Patna and Registrar, Patna, and further are pleased to take no action against those persons who have intentionally and knowingly given false statement and is attempting to harass your petitioner taking side of Md. Manzoor Hassan Pleader".
Paragraph 18 is as follows:
"That your honour may be pleased to consider it also notice under Section 80, C. P. C., and be pleased to pay the damage of Rs. 2,000/- caused by your honour and in absence a suit for realisation of the same will be instituted as your honour's order declaring existence of A. Rahman is clearly mala fide."
And in paragraph 19 as follows:
"That it your honour will lodge any complaint out of grudge to harass your petitioner, your petitioner on being acquitted without any objection will realise a further damage of Rs. 1000/-."
12. These statements made by Abdul Samad are grossly contemptuous. Although in his petition filed in this Court on 12-2-1958, showing cause, he made attempts to justify his conduct, he subsequently on 28-2-1958, filed another petition in which he expressed at the close of the petition an unqualified and unconditional apology. A perusal of this petition, however, does not show that he expresses an unqualified and unconditional apology, as he says in the concluding portion of his petition. He justifies his conduct in paragraphs 15 and 16 of this petition. In paragraph 15, he said:
"That one Jai Singh, Sheonandan Singh, Md. Latif, Deoki, Om Prakash and others told the opposite party that they had seen Md. Manzoor Hassan, Pleader, giving Rs. 200/- for the decision in the aforesaid appeal in his favour."
And in paragraph 16 he said:
"That the opposite party is now very sorry and regrets for his acts in believing those persons under the circumstances of the case due to his weak intellect and offers unqualified and unconditional nnology and puts himself upon the mercy of the Court."
There is nothing to support his statement that he was informed that the court had been given Rs. 200/- by Manzoor Hassan, Pleader. In the circumstances of this particular case I do not find it at all possible to accept the apology which the respondent, Abdul Samad, now offers. To accept an apology of this nature would, in my view, encourage persons to cast aspersions and make false allegations against judicial officers. Tt is necessary, in my opinion, to tako strict view of such matters in order to safeguard the position of courts exercising their judicial functions.
13. I would not, therefore, accept the apology which the respondent has offered today. I would hold him guilty and commit him for contempt of Court. The punishment which I would impose upon him would be to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
U.N. Sinha, J.
14. I agree.