# SAIBAL KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS v. B. K.·SEN AND ANOTHER - **Citation:** [1961] 3 S.C.R. 460 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1961 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 100of1958 - **Bench:** JAFER IMAM; K. SuBBA RAO, Raghubar Dayal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/saibal-kumar-gupta-and-others-v-b-k-sen-and-another-2030 - **Pages:** 26 ## Headnote Contempt of Court-Special Committee appointed by Corporation to enquire as to conduct of employees-Issue of questionnaire to Commissioner-Pendency of Criminal proceedings in Court-Committee, if functioned as parallel Coi;rt of enquiry-Members, if guilty of contempt. The first respondent, the then Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta, was after a protracted trial for an alleged offence umler s. 497 of the Indian Penal Code discharged by the Magistrate under s. 253(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Judge, on a petition in revision filed by the complainant, holding that the said respondent had suborned the complainant's witnesses, set aside the order of discharge and directed further enquiry by another Magistrate who permitted the complainant to tender further evidence. The respondent moved the High Con.rt in revision and a Division Bench issued a Rule and stayed further proceedings. While the matter was thus pending before the High Court, the Corporation of Calcutta by a resolution appointed the three appellants members of a Special Committee which ran as follows :- "That a Special Committee consisting of Councillors Shri S. K. Gupta, Shri R. N. Majumdar and Shri S. K. Roy be set up to enquire into the allegations levelled against certain officials of tl:)e Corporation who are alleged to have been taking advantage of their high offices in carrying on business in their own names. The Committee will take up only those matters that relate to the Corporation." Subsequent to the passing of the said resolution, the Mayor handed over to the Committee certain papers from a Councillor containing certain allegations against the Commissioner. It was the case of the said respondent that the Special Committee thereupon examined the complainant and another and issued to him a notice along with a questionnaire, the relevant portions of which were as follows:- "As you probably know, we have been appointed to make an enquiry into certain allegation$ relating to the administration of the Corporation of Calcutta and $pecially into certain steps tai\en by you in the matter of assessment and appointments and a few other matters, we are giving you a synopsis of the cases in which the enquiry is being held and we shall be glad if you kindly give us some time between 10 a. m. and II a. m. tomorrow (the 16th instant) so that we can get the facts from you." • • • l 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 461 " III (a). It is alleged that between 4th January, 1956, and 20th September, 1957, i.e., at or about the time when the case under section 497, I.P.C., was being tried, you gave appointments to the following persons: (1) Anil Koyal (2) Jogendra Nath Monda! (3) Ahi Kanta Choudhury (4) Govinda Banerjee (S) Narendra Nath Naskar, who are related respectively to Palan Koyal, Haradhan (alias Haridhan) Monda!, Tripti Choudhury, Thakur Raj Smriti Tirtha and Upendra Naskar, who were cited as witnesses in the case. (b) It is alleged that about the same time you gave appointments to Tarak Nath Day, Hardhan Day, Pradip Bhaduri, Ardhangsu Monda! etc. and condoned the punishment previously inllicted on Dhiren Monda! as they were helping you in conducting your defence in the case. (c) It is alleged that you were instrumental in securing the appointment of another probable prosecution witness Kamakshya Chatterjee through one M. L. Ghose against whom a demolition case was pending." Thereupon the first respondent filed a complaint in the High Court charging the appellants with contempt of the High Court as well as the trial court. The High Coqrt found the appellants guilty and convicted them for contempt of Court. Hence this appeal. Held (per Imam and Raghubar Dayal, JJ., Subba Rao, J. dissenting), that the appellants were not guilty of contempt of Court and the appeal must succeed. It could not be said that the Special Committee had constituted itself a court of parallel enquiry with regard to matters in issue either before the trial Magistrate or the ## Text _Characters 0–39,633 of 58,110. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39633 for what follows._ 460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] SAIBAL KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS v. B. K.·SEN AND ANOTHER. (JAFER IMAM; K. SuBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Contempt of Court-Special Committee appointed by Corporation to enquire as to conduct of employees-Issue of questionnaire to Commissioner-Pendency of Criminal proceedings in Court-Committee, if functioned as parallel Coi;rt of enquiry-Members, if guilty of contempt. The first respondent, the then Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta, was after a protracted trial for an alleged offence umler s. 497 of the Indian Penal Code discharged by the Magistrate under s. 253(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Judge, on a petition in revision filed by the complainant, holding that the said respondent had suborned the complainant's witnesses, set aside the order of discharge and directed further enquiry by another Magistrate who permitted the complainant to tender further evidence. The respondent moved the High Con.rt in revision and a Division Bench issued a Rule and stayed further proceedings. While the matter was thus pending before the High Court, the Corporation of Calcutta by a resolution appointed the three appellants members of a Special Committee which ran as follows :- "That a Special Committee consisting of Councillors Shri S. K. Gupta, Shri R. N. Majumdar and Shri S. K. Roy be set up to enquire into the allegations levelled against certain officials of tl:)e Corporation who are alleged to have been taking advantage of their high offices in carrying on business in their own names. The Committee will take up only those matters that relate to the Corporation." Subsequent to the passing of the said resolution, the Mayor handed over to the Committee certain papers from a Councillor containing certain allegations against the Commissioner. It was the case of the said respondent that the Special Committee thereupon examined the complainant and another and issued to him a notice along with a questionnaire, the relevant portions of which were as follows:- "As you probably know, we have been appointed to make an enquiry into certain allegation$ relating to the administration of the Corporation of Calcutta and $pecially into certain steps tai\en by you in the matter of assessment and appointments and a few other matters, we are giving you a synopsis of the cases in which the enquiry is being held and we shall be glad if you kindly give us some time between 10 a. m. and II a. m. tomorrow (the 16th instant) so that we can get the facts from you." • • • l 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 461 " III (a). It is alleged that between 4th January, 1956, and 20th September, 1957, i.e., at or about the time when the case under section 497, I.P.C., was being tried, you gave appointments to the following persons: (1) Anil Koyal (2) Jogendra Nath Monda! (3) Ahi Kanta Choudhury (4) Govinda Banerjee (S) Narendra Nath Naskar, who are related respectively to Palan Koyal, Haradhan (alias Haridhan) Monda!, Tripti Choudhury, Thakur Raj Smriti Tirtha and Upendra Naskar, who were cited as witnesses in the case. (b) It is alleged that about the same time you gave appointments to Tarak Nath Day, Hardhan Day, Pradip Bhaduri, Ardhangsu Monda! etc. and condoned the punishment previously inllicted on Dhiren Monda! as they were helping you in conducting your defence in the case. (c) It is alleged that you were instrumental in securing the appointment of another probable prosecution witness Kamakshya Chatterjee through one M. L. Ghose against whom a demolition case was pending." Thereupon the first respondent filed a complaint in the High Court charging the appellants with contempt of the High Court as well as the trial court. The High Coqrt found the appellants guilty and convicted them for contempt of Court. Hence this appeal. Held (per Imam and Raghubar Dayal, JJ., Subba Rao, J. dissenting), that the appellants were not guilty of contempt of Court and the appeal must succeed. It could not be said that the Special Committee had constituted itself a court of parallel enquiry with regard to matters in issue either before the trial Magistrate or the High Court. There can be no comparison between the present case and a trial conducted by a newspaper. The Special Committee was directed by the Corporation to enquire into malpractices on the part of its employees, necessarily including unworthy appointments, and the ascertainment of the motive could only be incidental to the main purpose of the enquiry and could not lead to the conclusion that the Special Committee was holding a parallel enquiry on matters pendins before the Court and thereby intended to interfere with the course of justice. The record clearly showed that the appellants had at no time intended to interfere with the course of justice, 11or had their conduct tended to do so. They had taken care not to comment on any proceedings pending in court or the isstles arising out of them. p.,. Subba Rao, J.-The appellants obviously initiated an enquiry which went beyond the scope of the resolution passe4 by the Corporation. With the knowledge that criminal proceedings were pending, they examined witnesses and served the Saibal K umor GupJa v. B.K. Sen Saibal Kumar Gupta v. B. K. Sen r ...... J. 462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] questionnaire. They permitted councillors and others to attend the enquiry which was in no sense confidential. It is settled law that a person is guilty of contempt of court if the act done by him is intended or calculated or likely to interfere with the course of justice. Re Read & Huggonson, (1742) 2 Atk. 469, The Queen v. Payne, (1896] I Q.B. 577, The Queen v. Gray, [1900] 2 Q.B. 36, R. v. Odham's Press Ltd., [1956] 3 All E.R. 494, R. v. Duffy & Others, [1960] 2 All. E.R. 891, State v. Biswanath Mahapatra, I.LR. [1955] Cuttack 305 and Ganesh Shankar V idyarthi' s case, A. LR. 1929 All. Sr, referred to: It could not be said in the instant case that the enquiry initiated by the committee to ascertain whether the first respondent had suborned witnesses cited or examined against him, could not have serious repercussions on the proceedings pending in the Magistrate's court or in the High Court. Although a strong willed Magistrate might not be influenced by the enquiry, it might unconsciously affect a weaker mind and thus obstruct the even course of justice. Even though a judge of the High Court might withstand the effect of such an enquiry, that would 11ot prevent the public and the parties, especially in a criminal case, from reasonably apprehending that the enquiry or the findings made by the committee might affect a fair hearing of the matter. The contempt, in the instant case, was not merely of a technical nature but of a serious character calculated to interfere with and obstruct the due course of justice and as such was preeminently one against which the court must take action. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 100of1958. Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 24, 1958, of the Calcutta. High Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 38 of 1958. G. S. Pathak and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants. L. K. Jha a.nd R. C. Datta, for respondent No. I. K. B. Bagchi a.nd P. K. Bose, for respondent No. 2. 1961. .January 13. The Judgment of Imam a.nd Ra.ghu~a.r Dayal,· JJ. wa.s delivered by Imam, J. Subba. Ra.o, J. delivered a. separate judgment. IMAM, J.-The appellants were convicted for contempt of court and ea.ch of them was sentenced to pa.y a fine of Rs. 500 by the Calcutta. High Court. They applied to the High Court for a certificate th!'t ' {- \ 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 463 the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court which was granted. Hence the present appeal. On March 19, 1955, one Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alipore, against the respondent B. K. Sen under s. 497 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate after examining numerous witnesses declined to frame a charge and discharged the accused under s. 253(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by his order dated July 13, 1957. Against the order of discharge Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury filed r. revisional application before the Sessions Judge of 24 Parga.nas, who by his order dated November 22, 1957, directed further enquiry. On January 3, 1958, the Magistrate while holding further enquiry, a.s directed, allowed the prosecution to tender further evidence. On February 3, 1958, the accused B. K. Sen filed a revision petition in the Calcutta. High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge directing further enquiry a.s well as the order of the Magistrate permitting the prosecution to lead further evidence. The High Court thereupon issued a Rule and stayed further proceedings. The respondent B. K. Sen held the office of Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation at the time he filed his petition in the Calcutta. High Court for pro. ceedings against the appellants for contempt of court. According to that petition, at a. special meeting of the Calcutta Corporation held on January 16, 1958, the Mayor suggested the formation of a. committee for discussion of necess~ry and appropriate steps to be ta.ken with ·a. view to eradicate alleged malpractices prevailing in different departments of the Corporation. At this meeting Sa.tya.na.nda. Bha.tta.cha.rjee ma.de certain wild allegations against B. K. Sen. Two resolutions were passed at the meeting, one of which. authorised the Mayor to constitute a. Special Committee to give effect to the suggestions and objectives indicated by the Mayor in his statement dated January 10, 1958. On February 14, 1958, a.t a.n ordinary meeting of the Calcutta. Corporation the aforesaid Bha.tta.charjee repeated his allegations ma.de at the previous meeting of January 16. At the meeting Stiibal K uma,. Gupta v. B.K. Sen Imam]. Saibat !( umar Gupta v. B K. Sen Imam]. 46( SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] it wa.s resolved that a Special Committee be set up and the appellants were elected as members of the committee. The Special Committee was to enquire into certain allegations made against certain officials of the Corporation who a.re said to have taken advantage of their office in carrying on business in their own names. The resolution was in the following terms:- " That a Special Committee consfsting of Councillors Shri S. K. Gupta, Shri R. N. Majumdar and Shri S. K. Roy be set up to enquire into the allegations levelled against certain officials of the Uorpora.tion who a.re alleged to have been ta.king advantage of their high offices in carrying on business in their own names. The Committee will take up only those matters that relate to the Corporation." The record of the contempt proceedings in the High Court shows that at a meeting of the Calcutta. Corporation, on March 26, 1958, Bhattacharjee informed the Mayor that on February 14, 1958, he had mentioned on the floor of the House certain charges against some high officials of the Corporation and that the Mayor ha.d asked him to submit his papers to the Special Committee. Bhatta.cha.rjee further informed the Mayor that the day before, at a. sitting of the Special Committee, he wanted to hand over to the Special Committee some papers that were with him, but the Special Committee would not take them and had stated that they would enquire into "open ca.ee only;". Bha.tta.cha.rjee then asked the Mayor to request the Special Committee to enquire into a.II the allegations ma.de by him. On this, the Mayor asked Bha.ttacha.rjee to hand over the papers to him. Then the Mayor stated that if that was not written in the proceedings he would take it that day that all the papers would be sent to the Specie.I Committee. Aooording to B. K. Sen, on April 11, 1958, Bima.la K&nta Roy was examined by the Committee and he admitted that his case against B. K. Sen under s. 497 of the Indian Penal Code was at that time pending ooneideration before the High Court. Bima.la Kanta Roy Ohoudhury then alleged that either the witnesse1 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 465 themselves or their near relations got appointments in the Corporation of Calcutta. Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury had specifically mentioned one Tarak Nath Dey. The entire purpose of the statement of Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury was to prove the truth of his allegations that B. K. Sen had abused his official position and had created a situation which made it impossible for him to produce relevant witnesses to prove his case. The Special Committee then caused the production of Tarak Nath Dey and confronted him with Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury. Tarak Nath Dey was then examined but denied that he was the agent of the wife of Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury or the Tadliirkar of B. K. Sen. The Special Committee went out of their way to traverse the grounds and take evidence on matters which were directly and substantially in issue and were pending in the Calcutta High Court. B. K. Sen further alleged in his petition that the appellants had set up a parallel court of enquiry for ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury. That the action of the Special Committee was calculated to create an atmosphere of prejudice against him and amounted to unwarranted interference whh the free flow of justice. The action of the Special Committee had a tendency to prejudice the trial and/or to influence the decision of the case by the trial Court or by the High Court. The Special Committee thereafter issued to him a questionnaire. The relevant portions of the questionnaire are in the following terms :- "III {a). It is alleged that between 4th January, 1956, and 20th September, 1957, i.e., at or about the time when the case under section 497, I.P.C., .was being tried, you gave appointments to the following persons: {l) Anil Koyal (2) Jogendra Nath Mond&l (3) Ahi Kanta Choudhury (4) Govinda .Banerjee (5) Narendra Nath Naskar, who are' related respectively to Palan Koyal, Haradhan {alias Haridhan) Monda!, Tripti ;Choudhury, Thakur Raj Smriti Tirtha and Upendra Naskar, who were cited a~ witnesses in the case, 59 1961 Saibal K U1Htw Guj>la v. B. K. Sen imam j; S11ibal K uHtar Gupl4 v. B.K. Se• lm4m ], 466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] (b) It is alleged that about the same time you gave appointments to Tarak Nath Dey, Hardhan Dey, Pradip Bhaduri, Ardhangsu Mondal etc. and condoned the punishment previously infiioted on Dhiren Mondal as they were helping you in conducting your defence in the case. (c) It is alleged that you were instrumental in securing the appointment . of another probable prosecution witness Kamakshya Chatterjee through one M. L. Ghosh against whom a demolition case was pending." The case of B. K. Sen before the High Court was that the action of the appellants as members of the Specie.I Committee amounted to gross contempt of the High Court as well as of the Court of trial. Accordingly, B. K. Sen filed on April 16, 1958, his petition in the High Court for proceedings against the appellants for contempt of court. Notice was issued to the appellants by the High Court returnable the same day to show cause why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of court. On April 17, 1958, the appellants showed cause. The High Court, however, isstled a Rule returnable by April 23. After hearing the parties the High Court on April 24, convicted the appellants as already stated. The only question for determination is whether the conduct of the appellants as members of the Special Committee amounted to contempt of court. On behalf of the appellants it was urged that the enquiry held by the Special Committee was not to determine the guil~ or the innocence of B. K. Sen in the case under s. 497 pending against him. It was impossible to characterise the enquiry by the Committee as a parallel enquiry. The Special Committee had been constituted specially for the purpose of determining whether the employees of the Calcutta Corporation had abused their position in the discharge of the powers vested in them. The Special Committee wa.s not constituted to enquire into the conduct of B. K. Sen only. Even the questionnaire sent to him referred to three incidents which have nothing to do with the case under s. 497 against him pending in t;he 3 S.C.R SUPREME COURT REPORTS 467 Magistrate's oohrt..,,,,. The first incident was concerned with an agreement with some lady to build a house for Rs. 40,000 and to sell it to her for Rs. 50,000 and that thereby he had engaged in a business for profit which was contrary to his conditions of service. The second incident related to the reduction of the valuation of certain premises, belonging to some persons described as the Guptas who were either his relations or friends, long after their appeal had been disposed of and without recording any adequate reasons for such reduction. The third incident related to the assessment of his own house when he had reduced its letting value to Rs. 90 per month and on that basis had been paying the Corporation tax whereas he actually received as house rent for the same at Rs. 250 per month. The opinion expressed by the Land Acquisition Collector was that the proper letting value of the premises would be Rs. 281 per month. The entire purpose of the enquiry was to ascertain whether B. K. Sen, as Commissioner of the Corporation, had been abusing his position as such. Even the questionnaire under Ill(a),(b) and (cl does not state that B. K. Sen had so acted with a view to suborning prosecution witnesses in the case against him under s. 497 or that he had acted in a manner so as to suppress the evidence which might be led against him. It was pointed out that the questionnaire throughout stated "it is alleged " and there was no assertion therein that B. K. Sen had actually acted in an improper manner. The letter which accompanied the questionnaire expressly requested B. K. Sen to give the Committee some time between 10 a.m: and 11 a. m. on April 16 so that they could get the facts from him. In other words, the Special Committee had not accepted the allegations against B. K. Sen but had merely pointed out to him the nature of the allegations and desired to get from him the actual facts. This conduct of the appellants as members of the Special Committee could not in any way amount to .their converting themselves into a tribunal holding a parallel enquiry to the real matter in issue in the case under s. 497 against B. K. Sen. Saibal Kumar Gupta v. B.K.Si11 Imam}. Saibal K unia,. Gupta v. B.K. Sen Jtnam ]. 468 StJPRlJIME COURT REPORTS [1961] It was further urged that if the question at all .arose in the enquiry that B. K. Sen had acted with the ulterior motives in the matters stated in questionnaire III(a), (b) and (c) that would be merely incidental to the main purpose of the enquiry whether he, as Commissioner of the Calcutta.Corporation, had abused his position. Before the conduct of the appellants could be characterised as contempt of court it had to be established that their conduct tended to prejudice mankind against B. K. Sen or it tended or was calealated to interfere with the due course of justice. It was further argued that before a person can be convicted for contempt of court it must be found that his act amounted to real contempt and was of a kinniaL Their mere assertion that "save and except what was stated in their affidavit nothing else was admitted" would. not be enough to controvert this assertion of B. K. Sen. Even if it be assumed that these two persons were examined by the appellants what is stated in paragraph 10 of B, K. Sen's affidavit in the High Court is that Bimala Kanta Roy Cbuudhury had mentioned names of the prosecution witnesses and had alleged that either the witnesses themselves 'Or their near I I 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS · 471 relations ha.d received appointments in the Corporation of Calcutta. He had also alleged that Tarak Nath Dey was the agent of the wife of Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury and Tadbirkar of B. K. Sen. Tarak Nath Dey when examined denied this. He was certainly an employee of the Corporation. Para.graph 10 further stated that the only purpose for which Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury was examined was to prove the truth of.the allegations made by him that B. K. Sen had abused his official position and had created a situation which had made it impossible for Bima.la. Kanta Roy Choudhury to produce relevant witnesses in proof of his case. Concerning the examination of Ta.ra.k Na.th Dey, in paragraph 11, B. K. Sen stated that the idea behind the examination of this individual was to prove B. K. Sea's connection and association with the wife of B. K. Roy Choudhury, and to show that he had appointed Tarak Nath Dey due to services rendered in connection with the case under s. 497, Indian Penal Code, against him. It is clear, however, from the questionnaire III (a), (b) and (c) that the appellants in framing the same did not assert that B. K. Sea's conduct in making the appointments mentioned therein was with a view to suborning prosecution evidence in the case under s. 497, Indian Penal Code, against him or to make it impossible for Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury to produce relevant witnesses in proof of his case. The combined effect of the letter written by the appellants to B. K. Sen in sending the questionnaire and the manner in which the questionnaire III (a), (b) and (c) were framed would indicate that the appellants did not accept all the allegations made by Bimala. Kanta Roy Choudhury or Bhattacharjee. The record does not establish that at any time the appellants had made comments on the case under s. 497, Indian Penal Code, pending against B. K. Sen or in respect of any matter pending in connection with that case in the Calcutta High Court. It was, however, s~id that in taking the papers filed by Bha.tta.cha.riee and thereupon examining Bima.la Kanta Roy Choudhury and Tara.k Na.th Dey the Saibal Kumar Gupta v. B. K. Sen Imam]. Saibal Kumar Gupta v. B. A·. Sen Imam]. 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] appellants had embarked upon a parallel enquiry on matters which were pending investigation in a court of law. The Special Committee consisting of the appellants was constituted by the Corporation to conduct an enquiry into the conduct of the. RPrvants of the Corporation in matters relating to aff\irs of the Corporation. The Special Committee was enquiring into not only the conduct of the Commissioner of the Corporation ( B. K. Sen) but also into the conduct of other servants of the Corporation. The questionnaire sent to B. K. Sen refers to his conduct in relation to matters in questionnaires I and IL These were matters which had no connection whatsoever with the case under s. 497, Indian Penal Code, against B. K. Sen. Regarding questionnaire III (a), (b), and (cj the principal matter which the Special Committee were to enquire into was whether (I) B. K. Sun had ma.de the appointments in question and (2) those appointments were of persons who were either related to the prosecution witnesses in the s. 497 case or were helping B. K. Sen in conducting his defence in that case. The questionnaire now here suggested that B. K. Sen had made these appointments in order to suborn prosecution witnesses in that case or that he had made the appointments with a view to preventing Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury from producing witnesses to l>rove his case against ll. K. Sen. Appointment of persons who were relations of witnesses for the prosecution in the s. 497 case or of those who were helping B. K. Sen in his defence in that case would certainly be a relevant matter in ultimately deciding whether B. K. Sen had taken advantage of his position as Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation in . making undeserving appointments. On the other hand, even if it were established that the appointments were made of relations of prosecution witnesses and of those who were helping him in his defence, the Special Committee may have, at the conclusion of their enquiry, found that the appointments in question were, in fact, of suitable and qualified persons and that B. K. Sen had not in making the appointments abused his position as a Fervant of the Corporation, I I , '1.' 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 473 The circumstances do not establish that the Special Committee had constituted itself as a court of parallel enquiry to look into matters in issue in the s. 497 case against B. K. Sen or which were in issue in the pending proceedings in the High Court. What exactly is meant by a court of parallel enquiry is not clear. No doubt it would be mischievous for a newspaper to systematically conduct an independent investigation into a crime for which a man has been arrested and to publish the results of that investigation. This is because trial by newspapers, when a trial by one of the regular tribunals of the country is going on, must be prevented. The basis for this view is that such action on the part of a nevspa per tends to interfere with the course of justice whether the investigation tends to prejudice the accused or the prosecution. There is no comparison between a trial by a. news. paper and what has happened in this case. The l::!pecial Committee had embarked upon an enquiry on the directions of the Corpora ti on in order to discover malpractice on the part of the Corporation's servants. Malpractices on the part of a servant of the Corporation would presumably include making unworthy appointments. The ascertainment of the motive for the appointments would be merely incidental to the main purpose of the enquiry. It would be difficult to conclude therefrom that the Special Committee were , holding a parallel enquiry on matters pending decision by a court of law and that thereby their action tended to interfere with the course of justice. It was not asserted in the affidavit of B. K. Sen that the Special Committee had knowledge that one of the questions to be decided in the proceedings before the High Court was whether B. K. Sen had suborned the prosecution witnesses in the case under s. 497 against him. There is no finding of the High Court in this respect either. If the conduct of a particular party a.mounts to contempt of court usually lack of knowledge of pending proceedings may not bE' available to him by way of defence. We have looked into the record of this case and have no hesitation in saying that the appellants at no 60 S aibal K "'""' G#PI• v. B;K. s.,. Saibal Kt1mar Gupta v. H.K. Sen Imam f. SubbaRao J. 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] time intended to interfere with the course of justice and their conduct did not tend to interfere with the course of justice. The appellants had been careful in making no comments on any proceedings pending in a court of law or the issues arising out of them. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the offence of contempt of court by the appellants has not been established. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the conviction of the appellants for contempt of court is set aside. The fines, if paid, must be refunded. SuBBA RAO, J.-1 have had the advantage of perusing the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Imam, J. I regret my inability to agree with him. In my view, this is one of the typical oases wherein a group of enlightened men constituting a committee did a purposive act which had a clear tendency to obstruct or interfere with the due process of justice. On the faotR, the following questions fall to be considered: (I) What was the nature of the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ali pore, and in the High Court at Calcutta and what were the questions that were to be decided therein? (2) What was the nature of the inquiry initiated by the appellants and what was the subject. matter of the said inquiry ? (3) Whether the acts attributed to the appellants constituted contempt of court. (4) If the appellants were guilty of contempt of court, was this an appropriate case for taking contempt proceedings against them? (5) Whether the punishment imposed on the appellants was excessive. The learned Judges of the High Court were in a position to ascertain the scope of the criminal proceedings taken against the appellants, for they had before them the entire record pertaining to the criminal revision case. The judgment of the High Court discloses that the learned Judges had freely drawn from the said record the facts necessary to elucidate the question raised before them; but, unfortunately, none of the parties thought fit to get the relevant portions of the criminal proceedings printed and placed before us, 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 475 I would, therefore, proceed on the basis of the allegations made by the respondents in their petition filed before the High Court in so far as they were not specifically controverted by the appellants and on the facts given by the learned Judges in their judgment. On Mll.r.ch 19, 1955, one Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Alipore, alleging that the first respondent, B. K. Sen, the then Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta, committed acts of adultery with his wife, Tripti Roy Choudhury and thereby committed an offence under s. 497 of the Indian Penal Code. After protracted trial and on ~n examination of many witnesses, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, by his order dated July 13, 1957, discharged the first respondent under s. 253 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, it was contended that the case of the complainant was true but he was prevented from proving it by reason of the respondent's interference with the prosecution witnesses. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in discharging the respondent also found that some prosecution witnesses were won over by the said respondent. Against the s&id order of discharge, Bimala Kanta Roy . Choudhury filed a revision pet,ition in the Court of the Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas, under s. 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the contention of Bimala Kanta Roy Choudhury that by the influence of respondent No. I many prosecution witnesses were withheld from the court, and by an order dated November 22, 1957, he set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and directed further enquiry by Sri C. L. Choudhury, a Magistrate with 1st Class powers a.t Alipore. On January 3, 1958, the said Magistrate passed a.n order enlarging the scope of the further enquiry and directed examination of new witnesses; in the result the prosecution wa.s allowed to tender further evidence a.nd the entire case wa.s reopened a.nd it wa.s a.waiting the decision of that court. On February 3, 1958, respondent No. I filed a. criminal revision, being Criminal Revision Case No. 149 of 1959, Saibal KumarGupta v. B. K. Sen Subba Rao f: Saibal KMmar GMpla v. B. K. Sin SubbG Rao ] , 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] in the High Court at Calcutta against the order of the Magistrate dated January 3, 1958, directing the examination of new witnesses. A division bench of the High Court issued a rule and stayed further proceedings in the Magistrate's court. It would be seen that one of the questions that fell to be decided by the High Court was whether there was any truth in the allegation that the respondent suborned the prosecution witnesses, with the result that some important witnesses did not attend the court and others perjured themselves to support the respondent. If the criminal revision was dismissed and the trial before the Magistrate proceeded, a similar question would arise before the Magistrate, namely, whether the prosecution witnesses were kept back from the witness.box because they were tampered with by respondent No. 1 and whether the prosecution witnesses examined, or some of them, had been influenced by the respondent. This question would have an important bearing not only on the disposal of the criminal revision petition but also on the appreciation of the evidence before the Magistrate. It may be recalled that on February 3, 1958, a division bench of the High Court issued a rule and stayed further proceedings in the Magistrate's court. On January 16, 1958, at a special meeting of the Corporation of Calcutta the Mayor suggested the formation of a committee for discussion of necessary and appropriate steps to be taken with a view to eradicate alleged malpractices prevailing in different departments of the Corporation. The Mayor suggested that the Commissioner of the Corporation should place his suggestions on the subject before the Committee. Satyananda Bhattacharjee, one of the councillors, made certain allegations against the Commissioner. The meeting passed two resolutions, one of which autho· rized the Mayor to constitute a Special Committee. On February 14, 1958, another meeting of the Corporation · was held. In that meeting Satyananda Bhattacharjee reiterated his allegations against the Commissioner and particularly referred to the criminal case pending in the High Court. The respondent protested against l, • I ' ~- ·-.. 3 S.C.R. SUPREllIE COURT REPORTS 477 :-_ ~.\: ...... ---~~·-~-- ', .· refere,nce to . matters· which constituted the subject- ' matter of a pending case in court .. _ -After some debate the Corporation passed the· following resolution appointing a Special Committee consisting of appellants I, 2 and 3: . "Resolved : That a Special Committee consisting of Councillord Sri S. K. Gupta, Sri. R. N.· lllajumdar and Sri S.K. Roy be set up to enquire into the allegations levelled against certain officials of the Corporation who are alleged to have been taking advantage of their high offices in carrying on business in their own names. The Committee will take up only those matters that relate to the Corporation. " . It will be-seen from the resolution that the said Committee was only authorized to enquire against officials ofthe~Qg}'.~ra.~ who were carrying· on-business· in their own names~ It was further elucidated that the Committee would take up only those matters: that related to the Corporation. Neither expressly nor by necessary implication this resolution ·auth.orized the· Committee to make an inquiry against the Commis- .