SAIBAL KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS versus B. K.SEN AND ANOTHER.

SAIBAL KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS versus B. K.SEN AND ANOTHER.

By majority (Imam and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.), the Special Committee did not function as a parallel court of enquiry into matters pending before the criminal court or the High Court. The enquiry was within the scope of examining malpractices among Corporation employees, not to determine guilt in the criminal case. There was no intention or tendency to interfere with the course of justice, and care was taken not to comment on proceedings in court.

Parties
Appellants: Saibal Kumar Gupta and others; Respondent No. 1: B. K. Sen; Respondent No. 2: Another (Respondent No. 2)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 January 1961
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction for Contempt of Court by the Calcutta High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction for contempt of court set aside.
Legal Topics
Contempt Proceedings, Parallel Enquiry, Interference With Course of Justice, Criminal Proceedings Pending
Criminal Law Contempt of Court Contempt Proceedings Parallel Enquiry Interference With Course of Justice Criminal Proceedings Pending

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saibal Kumar Gupta and others

Appellants

B. K. Sen

Respondent No. 1

Another (Respondent No. 2)

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction for Contempt of Court by the Calcutta High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants, as members of a Special Committee, were guilty of contempt of court for holding an enquiry relating to matters pending before the criminal court and the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi

By majority (Imam and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.), the Special Committee did not function as a parallel court of enquiry into matters pending before the criminal court or the High Court. The enquiry was within the scope of examining malpractices among Corporation employees, not to determine guilt in the criminal case. There was no intention or tendency to interfere with the course of justice, and care was taken not to comment on proceedings in court.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction for contempt of court set aside.

Orders

  • Conviction of the appellants for contempt of court is set aside.
  • Fine, if paid, must be refunded.