# RIZWAN-UL-HASAN AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF UT'rAR PRADESH - **Citation:** [1953] 1 S.C.R. 581 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1951-04-16 - **Bench:** Mehr Chand Mahajan, DAs - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rizwan-ul-hasan-and-another-v-the-state-of-ut-rar-pradesh-178 - **Pages:** 8 ## Headnote Contempt of Courts Act (XII of 1926), s. 3-Proceedings before Sub-Divisional Magistrate-Application by respondents to District Magistrate containing allegations against trying Magistrate and the bona fides of the pending proceedings-Transmission of application to Sub-Divisional Magistrate for report-Whether amounts to contempt of Court-Question of prejudice . . The jurisdiction in contempt of court is not to be invoked unless tbere is real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice. The purport of the court's action is a practical purpose and the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction upon a mere question of propriety. During the pendency of pi·oceedings against A and B under s. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, in the court of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, A and B made an application to the District Magistrate alleging that the proceedings were not bona fide and 1953 Feb. 5. ' 582. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] 1953 containing statements in the nature of a countercharge. The 2nd appellant who was then officiating as the District l\fagistrate sent Ril!!wan-ulthis application to the Sub-Divisional l\iagistrate for report and Hasan on reeeiving a report from him' that A and B should be asked to and Anothl!r file a formal complaint before· him, advised them to do so. A v. brother of A sent a similar petition to the District l\Iagistrate Th~ State of containing also allegations· against the trying "Th-fagistrate. The Uttar P1·adesh. 1st appellant, who was the District Magistrate, forwarded them to the Sub-Divisional l\1agistrate for report, itnd on receiving his 'report passed an order that he saw' no reason to withdraw the file from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The High Court of Allahabad held that as the applications contained allegations which might interfere with the course of tbe trial of the proceedings under s. 145, in transmitting the applications the appellants had acted without due circumspection and thought though they had no intention to influence the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the appellants were therefore guilty of contempt of court: Held, (i) that in transmitting the applications received by them to the Sub-Divisional l\fagistrate and calling for a report the appellants were not in any way iiiterfering with the course of justice but were only doing their duty as superior officers.; (ii) it was not possible to hold that any prejudice had.been caused by the two applications being sent by the appellants to the Sub-Divisional l\iagistrate or that any action was necessary to protect the Sub-Divisional I\iagistrate ~who was hearing the case and the appellants were not guilty of any contempt of court. Anantalal Singha v. Alfred Henry Watson([l931] I.L.R.58 Cal. 884) referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JurusDIOTION: Criminal Appeal No. 79of1952. Appeal by special leave from a Judgment and Order dated 16th April, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Dayal and Desai JJ.) in Criminal MiscellaneousNo.17 of 1950. K. S. Krishnaswami Iyengar (K. B. Asthana, with him) for the appellants. N. G. Sen for the respondent. 1953. February 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 16th April, 195 l, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 17 of 1950. The two appellants are members of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service. - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 583 In Marcb, 1950, appellant No. I (Rizwan-ul-Hasan) was posted as District Magistrate, Jalaun, and appellant No. 2, Mohammad Munawar, was posted as rJ. Magistrate in the same district, having officiated as .District Magistrate for some time in the early part of March, 1950. On 2nd March, 1950, one Phundi Singh commenced proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of J alaun on the allegation that Kedarnath and Matadin were about to cut his standing crop by ## Text . • S.C.R. SUPREME ootJ:R•r REPORTS 58i "Any dispute or difference arising out of the con1953 tract shall be referred to the arbitration of the officer G El t . sanctioning the con tract whose decision shall be final su::l~ 00~" ~~d. and binding." • v. ' It is obvious that these decisions could have no The State of relevance to the arbitration clause as drawn up in the Bihar. present case. If the nature of the claim is as we Mahajo.n J. have indicated above, it seems plain that it does not come within the scope of the submission. In our judgment, therefore, the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge was right and the Judges of the High Court were in error in reversing it. In the result the only course open to us is to allow the appeal with costs and to say that the plaintiff's claim is not within the scope of the submission and that the petition under section 34 was rightly dismissed by the Subordinate Judge. Agent for the appellants : Agent for the respondent : Appeal allowed. Raj inder Narain. P. K. Chatterji. RIZWAN-UL-HASAN AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF UT'rAR PRADESH. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and DAs JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act (XII of 1926), s. 3-Proceedings before Sub-Divisional Magistrate-Application by respondents to District Magistrate containing allegations against trying Magistrate and the bona fides of the pending proceedings-Transmission of application to Sub-Divisional Magistrate for report-Whether amounts to contempt of Court-Question of prejudice . . The jurisdiction in contempt of court is not to be invoked unless tbere is real prejudice which can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice. The purport of the court's action is a practical purpose and the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction upon a mere question of propriety. During the pendency of pi·oceedings against A and B under s. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, in the court of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, A and B made an application to the District Magistrate alleging that the proceedings were not bona fide and 1953 Feb. 5. ' 582. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] 1953 containing statements in the nature of a countercharge. The 2nd appellant who was then officiating as the District l\fagistrate sent Ril!!wan-ulthis application to the Sub-Divisional l\iagistrate for report and Hasan on reeeiving a report from him' that A and B should be asked to and Anothl!r file a formal complaint before· him, advised them to do so. A v. brother of A sent a similar petition to the District l\Iagistrate Th~ State of containing also allegations· against the trying "Th-fagistrate. The Uttar P1·adesh. 1st appellant, who was the District Magistrate, forwarded them to the Sub-Divisional l\1agistrate for report, itnd on receiving his 'report passed an order that he saw' no reason to withdraw the file from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The High Court of Allahabad held that as the applications contained allegations which might interfere with the course of tbe trial of the proceedings under s. 145, in transmitting the applications the appellants had acted without due circumspection and thought though they had no intention to influence the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the appellants were therefore guilty of contempt of court: Held, (i) that in transmitting the applications received by them to the Sub-Divisional l\fagistrate and calling for a report the appellants were not in any way iiiterfering with the course of justice but were only doing their duty as superior officers.; (ii) it was not possible to hold that any prejudice had.been caused by the two applications being sent by the appellants to the Sub-Divisional l\iagistrate or that any action was necessary to protect the Sub-Divisional I\iagistrate ~who was hearing the case and the appellants were not guilty of any contempt of court. Anantalal Singha v. Alfred Henry Watson([l931] I.L.R.58 Cal. 884) referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JurusDIOTION: Criminal Appeal No. 79of1952. Appeal by special leave from a Judgment and Order dated 16th April, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Dayal and Desai JJ.) in Criminal MiscellaneousNo.17 of 1950. K. S. Krishnaswami Iyengar (K. B. Asthana, with him) for the appellants. N. G. Sen for the respondent. 1953. February 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 16th April, 195 l, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 17 of 1950. The two appellants are members of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service. - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 583 In Marcb, 1950, appellant No. I (Rizwan-ul-Hasan) was posted as District Magistrate, Jalaun, and appellant No. 2, Mohammad Munawar, was posted as rJ. Magistrate in the same district, having officiated as .District Magistrate for some time in the early part of March, 1950. On 2nd March, 1950, one Phundi Singh commenced proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of J alaun on the allegation that Kedarnath and Matadin were about to cut his standing crop by force and that there was an imminent danger of a breach of the peace. The magistrate issued notices to the parties complained against and ordered -attachment of the standing crop. On 4th March, 1950, one Shriram, brother of Kedarnath, filed a counter application before the court making certain allegations against one 'rhakur Pratap Singb, said to be the real person behind the proceedings commenced by Phundi Singh. Kedarnath and Matadin, the respondents in Phundi Singh's application, also filed an application similar to that of Shriram before the District Magistrate on the same date. This application was accompanied by a recommendatory letter written to the District Magistrate by Lalla Ram Dwivedi, Secretary, District Congress Committee. It was received by the second appellant who was then officiating as District Magistrate and was sent by him to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalaun, in whose court Phundi Singh's application was pending, for report. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate returned it with the remark that a proper comp la.int should be made in his court in the ordinary way on the allegations made in the application. Thereupon the second appellant returned the application to Kedarnath and Matadin and advised them to move the Sub-Di vision al Magistrate ill a formal and proper manner. On the application of Phundi Singh made before the High Court of Allahabad under section 3 of the 1953 Rizwan-ulHasan and Another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh. MahajanJ. 5s4 SUPREME cob:RT REPORTS [1953) 1953 Contempt of Courts Act, the second appellant was Rizwan-ulheld guilty of contempt of the Sub-Divisional MagisHasan trate on the following reasoning :- and Another ' " Shri Mohammad M unawar opposite party No. 5 7,h 8 ~· t 1 forwarded application given by the opposite parties utt:r p;.~;sh. Nos. 2 and 3 together with introductory letter-to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalann. We do not think Mahajan J. that he had any intention to influence the Sub-Divisional Magistrate with respect to his action in the case under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. But intention is not of importance so far as the question of commission of contempt is concerned. He certainly acted without due circumspection and thought. It must have been clear to him that the application contained expression which affected the due c.onsiderations of the points in dispute in the proceeding under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. He says in his affidavit and we can accept it that he sent this application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate just for taking action for the protection of opposite parties No. 2 and No. 3 and their crop about which an allegation was made that sollle action was to be taken by the other party the night following. He should in the circumstances either pass an order for the police himself which he could have very well done, or he could have just conveyed a gist of the complaint necessitating protection of life and property immediately. His conduct in transmitting the allegations made by the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 to the SubDivisional Magistrate, Jalaun, in whose court the case under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, was pending, did amount to the commission of contempt of that court." As regards the first appellant, the facts are that on 22nd March an application was received by post in the office of the District Magistrate signed by Shriram containing allegations against the trying Magistrate. On 25th March, 1950, this application was sent by the appellant for report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate with the following endorsement:- ' ... • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 585 "S.D,0. Please look into these allegations and let 1953 me have a reporG." On 4th April, 1950, the SubRiewan-ul Divisional Magistrate submitted a report and the first Haean appellant having been satisfied that the allegation~ and Another were baseless passed the following order:- v. . d The State of " I do not see any reason to with raw the case Uttar Pradesh. from your file." ' • On the application of Phundi Singh mentioned Mahajan J. above made before the High Court of Allaha,bad under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act this appellant a.long with others was also held guilty of contempt of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court, on the following reasoning :- "Similarly transmission of the application sent by Shriram on the '25th' March to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, J alaun, amounted to commission of contempt of court by opposite party No. 6. The mere fact that he had to take action in view of the allegations against the magistrate in that application would not affect this question. The application contained, afil already stated, expressions showing that Phundi Singh was a history sheeter and that the case under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, was fictitious and was instituted at the instance of Pratap Singh. He should not have transmitted the entire application. He could have necessary extracts which related to the allegations against the magistrate sent to the court concerned in the circumstances when the applicants introduced matter irrelevant for transfer application. It may also be mentioned here that the application could be treated as a transfer application . though no such request was made in that application. J;'he application was neither properly presented nor was it accompanied by an affidavit nor was it stamped. The a.pplicant wanted some action for the protection of his crop from bad characters." Having found both the appellants guilty of contempt of court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalaun, the High Court took no action a.gainst them because they happened to commit contempt of court rather due to their ca.relessness a.nd la.ck of vigilance 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] than with any 'deliberate ii;i.tention to commit it. It was observed that officers who have to transmit comRizwan-ulHasan munications to conrts of justice should be vigilant 1953 and Another