Case: Bunna Prasad And Ors Vs. The State Of U.P. &amp; Anr

Court disbelieved the explanation of the Panches given before it because no mention of these was made in the order sheet dated December 25, 1963. The High Court held :"There was no reasonable ground for the Panches to have doubted the averments made in the application and affidavit of Mahabir that the High Court had stayed further proceedings before the Panchayat, nor is there anything in the order sheet to show that the Panches did not believe the contents of the application and affidavit of Mahabir. However, if they wanted to ascertain the matter, they should have at best stayed the proceedings for a short while and should have asked the applicant to produce a certified copy of the stay order. In the alternative, they should have verified from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate whether Mahabir had really filed an application and affidavit before him along with the original telegram received from his counsel at Allahabad saying that the High Court had already stayed the proceedings before the Nyaya Panchayat. But the Panches did nothing of the kind. The action of the Nyaya Panches in not doing so was obviously not bona fide and amounts to wilful disobedience of the High Courts order."9. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Chari, says that no contempt of court has been established because a Court is entitled not to act on an application which is not accompanied by an affidavit properly sworn to or a certified copy of the order. He urges that the Nyaya Panchayats exercised judicial powers and, even if the Panches erred in not staying proceedings, before finding them guilty of contempt of court it should be definitely proved that the order was passed deliberately to by pass the order of the High Court.10. This Court quoted with approval the following passage from Oswalds Contempt of Court, in Hoshiar Singh v. Gurbachan Singh, 1962 Supp (3) SCR 127 at p. 138 = (AIR 1962 SC 1089 at pp. 1093-1094) :"The judgment or order should be served on the party personally, except in the following cases: (1) prohibitive orders, the drawing up of which is not completed :In order to justify committal for breach of a prohibitive order it is not necessary that the order should have been served upon the party against whom it has been granted, if it be proved that he had notice of the order aliunde, as by telegram, or newspaper report, or otherwise, and knew that it was intended to be enforced, or if he consented to the order, or if he was present in Court when the order was pronounced, or when the motion was made, although he left before the order was pronounced."We need not consider whether it makes any difference in law if the order has been drawn up. We will for the purpose of this case assume that it does not make any difference. It is also clear that in such matters those who assert that a person had knowledge of the order must prove this fact beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt, the benefit ought to be given to the person charged with contempt of court. If a person bona fide comes to the conclusion on the material placed before him that the source of information is not authentic he cannot be held guilty of contempt of court for disobeying the order.11. The question then arises whether the Sarpanch and the Panches had knowledge of the existence of the order of the High Court dated December 20, 1963. The only material before them was the application dated December 25, 1963, which was not supported by any affidavit sworn to before a person authorised to administer oaths. Further, the application did not contain the date of the order; even a copy of the telegram was not attached to the application and the application seems to have been made after the proceedings on that date had commenced and evidence taken. We are unable to appreciate how on this material the bona fides of the Panches can be doubted if they refused to accept the mere statement of the party that the High Court had stayed proceedings before them. It seems to us that the High Court did not appreciate that the so-called affidavit which was filed before the Panches was in fact not an affidavit at all. It had not been sworn to before any person authorised to administer oaths. It was no part of the duty of the Panches to enquire from the S. D. M. about the filing of the application before him. At any rate, he has apparently no jurisdiction to stay proceedings before the Nyaya Panchayats when no proceeding is pending before him. It is true that in certain cases proceedings can be adjourned to enable the parties to file better proof, but a judicial officer is not bound to do so and, if he bona fide does not in his discretion adjourn proceedings, it cannot be said that he has committed contempt of court. It must also be borne in mind that Panches are not well-versed in law and procedure and the records maintained by them should not be judged in the same manner as that of ordinary courts. With respect, the High Court should not have drawn an adverse inference from the fact that the reasons for not accepting the prayer for stay were not recorded. Contempt of court is a serious matter and a High Court should be chary of finding a judicial officer guilty of contempt of court for disobeying its orders unless there is unimpeachable evidence that the judicial officer had knowledge of the order of the High Court. In our opinion, there is no such evidence in this case.12. The learned counsel for the State contends that we should not reappreciate the facts, but, with respect, it seems to us that the High Court, while dealing with the evidence, has not kept in mind the principles which we have mentioned above.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]It is true that in certain cases proceedings can be adjourned to enable the parties to file better proof, but a judicial officer is not bound to do so and, if he bona fide does not in his discretion adjourn proceedings, it cannot be said that he has committed contempt of court. It must also be borne in mind that Panches are not well-versed in law and procedure and the records maintained by them should not be judged in the same manner as that of ordinary courts. With respect, the High Court should not have drawn an adverse inference from the fact that the reasons for not accepting the prayer for stay were not recorded. Contempt of court is a serious matter and a High Court should be chary of finding a judicial officer guilty of contempt of court for disobeying its orders unless there is unimpeachable evidence that the judicial officer had knowledge of the order of the High Court. In our opinion, there is no such evidence in this case.