- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
The State Of Bihar v. Shiv Prasad Lal Seth And Another Opposite Party.
Judicial Summary: Contempt Proceeding — Order by Tarkeshwar Nath, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion arises from a contempt proceeding instituted after a Magistrate (Mr. S.S. Singh, Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh) reported that a notice served upon him under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure contained expressions that scandalised the Court. Notices to show cause were issued to Shiv Prasad Lal Seth and Rai Sharda Prasad Chowdhary, Pleader, by order dated 4-8-1959.
The underlying factual matrix: on 13-5-1955 the Hazaribagh Municipality lodged a complaint under the Bihar Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against Nemichand Jain and Shyam Sunder Sao. Bail was granted to Nemichand Jain on 1-6-1955 with Shiv Prasad Lal Seth as surety. Nemichand Jain was absent on a later date, the Magistrate forfeited the bail bond under Section 514 CrPC, and issued proceedings including a notice on the bailor. Nemichand Jain subsequently surrendered and was released on fresh bail. The Magistrate later remitted half the forfeited amount but ordered distress proceedings when the balance was not paid.
Aggrieved, Shiv Prasad Lal Seth appealed (Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1956) to the Sessions Judge, who allowed the appeal on 30-6-1956, holding the forfeiture was wrong (inter alia because there was no enquiry before forfeiture and the bail bond was erroneously made in favour of the "King Emperor"). After that judgment, on 2-8-1956 Shiv Prasad Lal Seth (through Pleader Rai Sharda Prasad Chowdhary) served a Section 80 notice on the Chief Secretary, the Deputy Commissioner and Mr. S.S. Singh claiming Rs. 10,000 as damages for the Magistrate's alleged wrongful acts. The Magistrate complained that the notice contained contemptuous expressions, which led to the present show-cause proceedings in this Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the language used in the Section 80 notice (notably phrases such as “not acted in good faith” and “wilful abuse of his authority”) amounted to scandalising the Court or otherwise constituted contempt of court.
- Whether the facts and legal context (including the Sessions Judge's judgment setting aside the forfeiture and relevant case-law/statutory provisions) justified the use of the contested expressions in a Section 80 notice without constituting contempt.
Arguments of the Parties
State (represented by Mr. Varma)
- Contended that expressions in the Section 80 notice—specifically: (a) that the Magistrate “had not acted in good faith” in accepting a bail bond in favour of the King Emperor, and (b) that the Magistrate “made a wilful abuse of his authority” and acted recklessly or contrary to well-known rules—amounted to scandalising the Magistrate and imputed improper motive to him.
Opposite Party No. 1 — Shiv Prasad Lal Seth
- Asserted absence of any intention to scandalise or show disrespect to the Magistrate; maintained the expressions were used in the context of a Section 80 notice and were prepared by his pleader and explained to him in Hindi.
- Tendered an unconditional apology in case the expressions constituted contempt.
Opposite Party No. 2 — Lieutenant Rai Sharda Prasad Chowdhary (Pleader)
- Explained he prepared and signed the notice in the course of his professional duty, believing the grievance and the proposed damages suit to be just and maintainable.
- Emphasised a long clean career at the Bar; denied any intention to scandalise the Magistrate; if the language was deemed contemptuous, tendered an unqualified apology and expressed sincere regret.
Defence Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 (Mr. T.K. Prasad)
- Submitted that the expressions were necessary and proper in a Section 80 notice to make out a case for a damages suit against a judicial officer; argued those expressions did not amount to contempt.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Thakur Krishna Narain Singh v. The King Emperor, 3 Pat LT 381 : AIR 1922 Pat 242 | Illustrated that an order of forfeiture under Section 514 CrPC should be preceded by enquiry/evidence; used to argue that forfeiture without enquiry was legally unsustainable. | The Sessions Judge relied on this decision in allowing the appeal against forfeiture; this Court noted that the Sessions Judge's view (that an enquiry should have been held) had force and that the decision supported the conclusion that the Magistrate's forfeiture was erroneous. |
| Pagla Baba v. The State, AIR 1957 Orissa 130 | Explained the criminal-law concept of “good faith” (that an act done without due care and attention is not in good faith) and distinguished it from civil notions of good faith. | The Court relied on this distinction to interpret the phrase “not acted in good faith” in the Section 80 notice, observing that lack of due care (in criminal-law sense) means absence of good faith; this informed the assessment of whether the language imputed culpable motive or merely alleged lack of due care. |
| Bubai Manihi v. The State, AIR 1958 Pat 286 | Supported the view that the Magistrate's forfeiture without an enquiry was not sustainable in law (a later decision of this Court aligning with the Sessions Judge's conclusion). | The Court observed that this decision fortified the Sessions Judge's judgment setting aside the forfeiture, and that fact formed part of the factual-legal background against which the contested language of the notice was to be read. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court conducted a contextual and purposive assessment of the contested expressions, rather than treating them as isolated phrases. The analysis proceeded in the following steps:
- The Court recited the factual background: the forfeiture order by Mr. S.S. Singh, the subsequent surrender and fresh bail, the Sessions Judge's allowance of the appeal holding the forfeiture erroneous (noting absence of enquiry and an erroneous formalism of bail in favour of the "King Emperor").
- The Court examined statutory and doctrinal material relevant to the phrase “good faith.” The opinion quoted Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code defining “good faith” (an act done without due care and attention is not in good faith), and relied on Pagla Baba (AIR 1957 Orissa 130) to stress the criminal-law meaning of “good faith” and its distinction from civil law notions.
- The Court considered Section 1 of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act (1850), which shields judicial officers from civil liability for judicial acts done in discharge of duty provided they believed in good faith they had jurisdiction. The Court observed that to make out a damages suit against a judicial officer, absence of good faith must be alleged.
- Having noted that the Sessions Judge's judgment (backed by cited precedents, including Thakur Krishna Narain Singh and Bubai Manihi) had already held the forfeiture to be erroneous, the Court considered that the expressions in the Section 80 notice were used against this factual and legal backdrop and aimed to allege non-compliance with Section 514 CrPC and other irregularities.
- The Court read the notice as a whole and concluded the expressions (e.g., “not acted in good faith,” “wilful abuse of his authority,” “failed to act reasonably, carefully and circumspectly”) were used to assert that the Magistrate had not complied with legal requirements and had failed to exercise proper care and caution, rather than to scandalise or impute corrupt motives.
- On the critical question whether those expressions amounted to scandalising the Magistrate and therefore contempt, the Court held they did not. The Court found no sufficient basis to conclude the parties intended to scandalise or show disrespect; the professional context, legal grounds already established by the Sessions Judge, and the pleaded aims of the Section 80 notice influenced this conclusion.
- The parties' explanations and, in particular, the unqualified apologies tendered were noted. The Court accepted the cause shown by the opposite parties and discharged the rule issued for contempt.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court accepted the cause shown by the opposite parties and DISCHARGED THE RULE issued for contempt. The language in the Section 80 notice did not, on the facts and in context, amount to scandalising the Magistrate or to contempt of Court.
Implications:
- Direct effect: Shiv Prasad Lal Seth and Rai Sharda Prasad Chowdhary were not committed for contempt; the show-cause rule was discharged and no punishment for contempt was imposed.
- Contextual note: The decision was grounded in the specific factual and legal matrix (notably the Sessions Judge's earlier judgment setting aside the forfeiture and applicable statutory provisions). The opinion does not purport to lay down a novel or general rule beyond its application to these facts; no new broad precedent was announced by this order.
Disposition recorded succinctly in the opinion: "Rule discharged." (Concurrence by H.K. Chaudhuri, J. recorded.)
Tarkeshwar Nath, J.:— This Court by an order dated 4-8-59 directed that notices be issued to Shiv Prasad Lal Seth and Rai Sharda Prasad Chowdhary, Pleader Hazaribagh, to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of Court for scandalising the Court of Mr. S.S Singh, Magistrate first class, Hazaribagh, by making certain aspersions in respect of the Judicial orders passed by that Magistrate and those aspersions were made in a notice sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar and others under their signatures dated 2-8-56.
2. The facts relevant to the present proceeding for contempt are these. On 13-5-55 the Chairman of the Hazaribagh Municipality instituted a case against Nemichand Jain and Shyam Sunder Sao in respect of certain offences under the Bihar Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate at Hazaribagh. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence the same day and summoned both the accused fixing 1-6-55 for trial. It appears that Nemichand Jain appeared on 1-6-55 and he was ordered to be released on bail of Rs. 1000/- and Shiv Prasad Lal Seth stood surety for him.
3. The other accused Shyam Sunder Sao did not appear on that day and Nemichand Jain undertook to produce him on the next day. The same day the case was transferred to the file of Mr. S.S Singh, Magistrate 1st class, Hazaribagh, and 15-6-1955 was fixed for the production of the other accused. The trial of the case commenced and continued and on 4-4-56 Mr. Singh directed the case to be put up on 7-4-56 for argument directing the accused to be present in person. On 7-4-56 Snyam Sunder Sao was present but the other accused Nemichand Jain was absent. There being no petition either on behalf of Nemichand Jain or on behalf of his bailor accounting for the absence of Nemichand, the learned Magistrate forfeited the bail bond of Rs. 1000/- under Section 514 of the Cr PC directing that a notice should be issued on the bailor to show cause by the next date as to why he should not be called upon to pay the penalty of the forfeited bail amount of Rs. 1000/-. A bailable warrant of arrest was to be issued against Nemichand Jain returnable by 12-4-1956. Nemichand Jain, however, surrendered on 9-4-56 and filed a petition accounting for his absence stating therein that due to certain breakdown of his vehicle in the interior or Daudnagar sub-division he could not be present on the date fixed and he made a prayer for recall of the warrant of arrest. The learned Magistrate released him on a fresh bail of Rs. 2000/-.
4. On the same date the bailor Shiv Prasad Lal Seth also filed a similar petition stating the grounds for fhe absence of Nemichand Jain and made a prayer to recall the order of forfeiture. On 4-5-56 the learned Magistrate held that the cause shown was unsatisfactory but he remitted half of the forfeited amount directing the bailor to deposit the remaining Rs. 500/- within a fortnight from that date. The last order dated 21-5-56 indicates that the said sum of Rs. 500/- was not deposited and the learned Magistrate directed that distress warrant should be issued against the bailor returnable within a certain time.
5. Shiv Prasad Lal Seth being aggrieved by the said order of forfeiture preferred a criminal appeal (No. 127 of 1956) in the court of the Sessions Judge of Hazaribagh and the learned Sessions Judge allowed this appeal on 30-6-56 holding that the order of forfeiture was wrong. It appears from the judgment of this criminal appeal that one of the points raised was that there was no enquiry before the order of forfeiture was passed and reliance was placed upon the provisions of Section 514 of the Cr PC and the decision in the case of Thakur Krishna Narain Singh v. The King Emperor, 3 Pat LT 381 : (AIR 1922 Pat 242) and while dealing with this point the learned Sessions Judge observed that the argument raised about no enquiry having been made had every force and the learned Magistrate ought to have taken evidence and satisfied himself before passing an order for the forfeiture of the bail bond. The other illegality in the bail bond was that it was made out in favour of the King Emperor which was obviously erroneous and on these two grounds the appeal succeeded.
6. Shiv Prasad Lal Seth sent a notice dated 2-8-56 under Section 80 of the CPC to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar, the Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh and Mr. S.S Singh, Magistrate first class, Hazaribagh, indicating therein the cause of action for the proposed suit against Mr. S.S Singh, Magistrate, claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as damages and compensation for injuries and loss sustained due to the order of forfeiture of the bail bond passed by him.
7. This notice was signed by Lieutenant Rai Sharda Prasad Chowdhry, Pleader, Hazaribagh, and he sent it on instructions of his client Shiv Prasad Lal Seth. After quoting the various orders passed by the learned Magistrate in the Criminal case against Nemichand Jain and Shyam Sunder Sao id has been stated that the cause of action arose on 1-6-55 when the learned Magistrate Mr. S.S Singh, vested with 1st Class powers, being an experienced Government servant under State of Bihar, knowing perfectly well that there was no King Emperor in India, was pleased to accept a bail bond executed by Sri Nemichand Jain and his bailor Shiv Prasad Lal Seth for Rs. 1000/- in favour of King Emperor which the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to accept and by accepting the said bond had not acted in good faith.”
8. There is a further statement in this notice that the learned Magistrate made a wilful abuse of his authority by passing the order of the forfeiture of the bail bond, which order was passed without due care, caution and circumspection in a reckless manner or in contravention of obvious or well known rules of law or procedure. The words “not acted in good faith,” “failed to act reasonably, carefully and circumspectly” and “wilful abuse of authority” have been used in other statements as well of this notice under Section 80 of the CPC.
9. On 30-8-56 Sri S.S Singh, Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh, submitted a report mentioning therein that Shiv Prasad Lal Seth and Rai Sarda Prasad Choudhary, Pleader, had used contemptuous expressions in the notice served upon him which made them liable for contempt and this report was forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge to this Court on the receipt of which an order was passed for issuing notices to Shiv Prasad Lal Seth and Rai Sarda Prasad Choudhary, Pleader, for showing cause as to why they should not be committed for contempt of Court.
10. Opposite party No. 1 Shiv Prasad Lal Seth has filed an application showing cause and the stand taken by him is that he had no intention to scandalise the Court of the learned Magistrate or show any disrespect or disregard or impute any bad motive to the said Magistrate. According to him the expressions objected to by the learned Magistrate were used for the purposes of the notice under Section 80 of the CPC and the notice was prepared by Rai Sarda Prasad Chowdhary who explained the contents thereof to him in Hindi and advised that the proposed suit was likely to succeed. He has, however, tendered unconditional apology in case the offence of contempt was made out.
11. Opposite party no. 2 Lieutenant Rai Sarda Prasad Chowdharv, Pleader also has shown cause which is quite elaborate dealing with the facts & the various questions of law and he has appeared in person in this Court. He has stated that he joined the bar in 1925 and during his 35 years of practice as a pleader be was never disrespectful to any Court and his career was absolutely neat and clean. He was satisfied that the grievance of Shiv Prasad Lal Seth, opposite party No. 1, was just and proper, he had a good cause of action for the proposed damage suit against the learned Magistrate and that being the position he prepared the notice under Section 80 of the CPC and signed it in course of his professional duty. He also has stated that he had no intention either to scandalize the learned Magisrate or show any disrespect to him and in case the expressions used by him amounted to contempt he was tendering unqualified apology and expressing sincere regret.
12. Mr. Varma appearing for the State has taken exceptions to the use of the following expressions in the notice under Section 80 of the CPC:—
(a) “The learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to accept, and by accepting the said bond had I not acted in good faith”, and
(b) “the learned Magistrate was pleased to make a wilful abuse of his authority, by passing of the order of forfeiture of the bail bond, which order was passed without due care, caution and circumspection in a reckless manner or in contravention of obvious or well known rules of law or procedure”.
He submitted that these words amounted to scandalising the learned Magistrate and motive was imputed to him. Mr. T.K Prasad appearing for opposite party No. 1 repelled this contention by submitting that these expressions had to be used while giving a notice under section 80 of the Coda of Civil Procedure in order to make out a proper case for relief in a suit for damages and compensation against the learned Magistrate and they did not amount to contempt. Opposite Party No. 2 who appeared in person also has taken the same stand. The expression “good faith” has been defined in section 52 of the Indian Penal Code and it runs thus:— “Nothing is said to be done or believed in ‘good faith’ which is done or believed without due care and attention”, which means that if an act is done without due care and attention it will be deemed to have been done not in good faith.
As to what is meant by good faith came to be considered in the decision in the case of Pagla Baba v. The State, AIR 1957 Orissa 130 wherein it was observed as follows:
“There is a distinction between acting contrary to law and without jurisdiction and ‘acting in a way not strictly justifiable by law’. ‘Good faith’ in criminal law is different from ‘good faith’ as understood in Civil Law. If an act is not done with due care and attention, it cannot be said to be done in good faith as far as criminal law is concerned.” The matter may be considered from another view point. Section 1 of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act (No. 18 of 1850) provides as follows:
“No Judge, Magistrate,……or other person acting judicially shall be liable to lie sued in any Civil Court for any act done or ordered to be dona by him in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether or not within the limits of his jurisdiction: Provided that he at the time, in good faith, believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or order the act complained of……”.
In other words, according to this section if the Judge or the Magistrate did something in the discharge of his Judicial duty acting in good faith he cannot be made liable for that act. In view of this provision as well Shiv Prasad Lal Seth who proposed to institute a suit for damages and his lawyer thought that unless absence of good faith was pleaded this suit might not be maintainable.
13. At the time the notice was sent the judgment of the criminal appeal setting aside the order of forfeiture had been already delivered and the learned Sessions Judge had come to the conclusion that the order of forfeiture without an enquiry and without taking evidence was erroneous and not sustainable in law. The view taken by him was supported by the decision in 3 Pat L.T 381 : (AIR 1922 Pat 242), already referred to, and also by a later decision of this Court in the case of Bubai Manihi v. The State, AIR 1958 Pat 286. Fortified by this Judgment Shiv Prasad Lal Seth decided to send the notice in question on the advice of a lawyer having a long standing at the bar.
14. The expressions used in the said notice have to be considered with this background and the expression “not acting in good faith” was used for the purposes of showing that the Magistrate had passed the order of forfeiture without complying with the provisions of Section 514 of the Cr PC and the bail bond taken in favour of the King Emperor was not at all valid in law. In view of these irregularities it was alleged in the notice that there was contravention by the Magistrate of the obvious or well known rules of law or procedure which meant that the learned Magistrate did not take proper care and caution.
15. The same expressions were repeated in other paragraphs of the notice and reading the notice as a whole it only indicates that because the Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of law he made a wilful abuse of his authority and not acted in good faith.
16. The expressions objected to by Mr. Varma do not however, make out a case of contempt, and the I opposite party cannot be held to have scandalised the Magistrate or shown any disrespect to him by the use of those expressions.
17. In the result, the cause shown by the opposite party is accepted and the rule issued against them is discharged.
18. H.K Chaudhuri, J.:— I agree.
DD/R.G.D
19. Rule discharged.
Alert