State vs Bherulal Pannalal and Another

Mehta, J.—A notice was issued by this Court on 29-6-1950 to one Devprakash, Sarpanch, Panchayat Board Raoti and to one Bherulal, Secretary of Panchayat Board Raoti to show cause why should not be committed for contempt of (sic) much as they sent a written communication Civil Judge, Sailana, in which they (sic).

bl xjhc dh lgk;rk Qjekdj uknkjk esa nkok eatwj Qjekdj edku dk dCt fnykus dh d`ik djsa

By his letter the Sarpanch and the tary tried to interfere with the course of Judge and tried to influence the Civil Judge, Saf(sic) The letter containing the above mentioned (sic)ings was written by the Panchayat Board, and signed by the Sarpanch and the Secretary and on 6-7-1950 it was sent to the Civil Sailana.

Suit was first instituted in a Pan Court of Raoti by Moti, Nanda and Goving redemption of a house and possession The Panphayat Board found that it jurisdiction to hear the case and, therefore 6-7-1950 after dismissing the suit, the " Sarpanch Panchayat Board, Raoti, sent the above let 6-7-1950 to the Civil Judge, Sailana. It was signed by the Sarpanch.

In my opinion the above letter constitution interference in the administration of justice Panchayat Board has tried to influence the, Judge, Sailana and as such they have co(sic) ted contempt of Court. The members o Panchayat Board are expected to know that; pending matter they cannot write to the Judge in whose Court the case was pending; the matter should be decided in a part way. It cannot be urged that they had no(sic) intention to influence the Court. In my opinion question of intention is irrelevant in considered whether the offence is committed. The question in such cases is not as to what was the (sic) intention of the offender but what was the effect the publication. There is no doubt that their dency of the above letter is to interfere the administration of justice. The Pane Board has tried to influence the Civil Judge writing the letter.

I, therefore, hold that the above letter stituted contempt of Court and sentence both accused to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each costs of the Government Advocate.

Kaul, C.J.

I agree with the order proposed passed by Mehta J. and shall add a few of my own to mark the importance which High Court attaches to such cases.

It is unnecessary for me to restate the as they have been mentioned in the Judge of my learned brother Mehta J. There can be doubt that both Bherulal and Devprakash aware that in view of the order passed Panchayat Board, Raoti, Moti, Nanda and G(sic) would go to the Civil Court as the Pane Board was found not to have jurisdiction cide the case. To address a communication which an extract has been given in the pent of Mehta J. was clearly an act done a view to influence the Court in its decision the case that was likely to come up before shortly.

Four points were urged by Mr. Rage behalf of his clients: (i) That no case, pending before the Court when his clients the letter which is alleged to constitute tempt of Court, (ii) That it was written request of Moti, Nanda and Govind. (iii) his clients had no intention to affect the and whatever they did was done with best of motives with a view to aid justice; (iv) That the act complained of was done ignorance of its legal implications and in view unqualified apology tendered the persons (sic)whom notice was issued they may not be with any punishment.)

In fairness to Mr. Rege it may be stated he did not consider the first of the points mentioned above as a ground for holding that was done by his clients did not amount to contempt of Court. I am clearly of opinion that learned Counsel was well advised in adopting course. Such a question arose in the case ''Tusharkanti Ghose v. Governor of Bengal Council'' AIR 1933 Cat 118 (A), at pp. 122, 123 was contended that there could be no pt of High Court as the case was not g before it. The contention was negatives, erence was made in this connection by the Bed Judges, Panckridge and Patterson JJ. in ort of the view taken by them that there be a contempt of Court even though no was pending before it at the time the article complained of was written, to the following - In re Laboratories Ex. Parte Columbus Ltd. (1901) 17 TER 573 (B); -Rex. v. Devis (1903) 2 KB3 432 (C);-''Rex. v. Davies'' 1 KB 32 (D)and - ''Governor of Bengal Matilal Ghose'' (1913) 41 Cal 173 at p. 215.

The gist of the offence of contempt of it is to do something which would affect the course of justice to the prejudice of a party in pending litigation or in circumstances where it dear that the case was likely to come before Court in a short time. What was done in the Court does in my opinion amount to contempt of Court.

That the letter was written at the instance Moti, Nanda and Govind without any intention affect the course of justice and in ignored of legal implications cannot absolve Mr. ''S Clients from the consequences of their act unable to accept the contention that the addressed to the Civil Judge, Sailana, was Written with the intention to affect the of justice. The intention of the writer the criterion by which we should Judge the act complained of amounts to con- m not. This may be material in awarding punishment. The main question for us to is what is the effect of the letter in and if it had a tendency to obstruct interfare with the due and proper course administration of justice.

We have no doubt that the apology ten- this case is sincere. At the same time of lose sight of the fact that the Officers Panchayat Board, Bherulal and Dev should have known that what they were as most improper. To mark our disapprobation of this con(sic) indicate the serious view which we take the Case I agree with the order passed by ,that Bherulal and Devprakash each may a fine of Rs. 25/- and bear the costs ernment which we assess at Rs. 30/-.

HIGH COURT:

Bherulal and Devprakash are held guilty contempt of Court and each of them shall got Rs. 25/-. They shall further bear (sic) of the Government which we assess 30/-. Only one set of costs shall be (sic).