Sh. Satnam Singh and Others vs Sh. Bawa Singh and Others

Man Mohan Singh Liberhan, J.—This contempt petition arises out of an order dated September 15, 3988, whereby the respondents were restrained from digging the land in dispute any further in future. It is not disputed that the injunction Older was issued against the landlord as well as the lessee. It is not disputed in the course of arguments that digging did take place after the order dated September 15, 1988 Since the lessee has left India, the petitioners have given him up The learned counsel for the respondents contends that he was not in physical possession of the land in dispute. It was the lessee who was in physical possession of the land in dispute and it is he who had dug. Thus, the answering respondent has not incurred any criminal liability for violating the order of this Court.

There is no gainsaying that a person can be convicted for disobeying the orders of the Court if he does so intentionally. No vicarious criminal liability can be fixed on the landlord when the actual crime is undisputedly committed by the lessee. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is the responsibility of the landlord to comply with the injunction and it is of no consequence that the land has been dug by the lessee. I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is the criminal liability which is sought to be fastened and the same cannot be fixed vicariously. In view of this, rule is discharged. No order as to costs.