AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Reddeppa Reddi, J.—The respondent-contemner (hereinafter referred to as the ''contemner'') is an Advocate practising in the Courts of District Munsif and Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile) at Mulug and other Courts in Warangal District. Sri K. Ramesh, District Munsif, Mulug and Sri K. Balarama Raju, Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile),Mulug addressed letters dt.13-10-1995 to the District Judge, Warangal, complaining many things against the contemner. However, in the case on hand, we are concerned only with what he is alleged to have done on 11-10-1995 between 4 and 4-30 p.m. in the office of the District Munsif''s Court. On this aspect, the report of the District Munsif, Mulug reads as under:
".... on 11-10-1995 at about 4-30 p.m. the junior Advocate of Sri Prakash Rao furnished sureties in excise matters. As one of the sureties is not able to tell the particulars of the person correctly to whom he is standing surety, I have naturally rejected that surety. Then at the request of the junior Advocate, I released the accused on bail by extending time to furnish the remaining surety on a petition filed by the Advocate. Though time is extended, till to-day surety is not yet produced. After that, Sri Prakash Rao was in the office and was watching the proceedings. He went to the staff and abused me saying that who is the officer to reject the surety and that the officer is verifying the particulars of all the sureties in all the cases and that the officer do not know anything and that only by the grace of the God, he secured the job and that he will see the end of the two officers (myself and Mobile Magistrate) and how we will survive in Mulug and that he also threatened that he will come again at about 6 p.m. and that if no favourable orders are passed, he will see my end and will also set fire to the Court building and also the Court records and that (he) will also blast the Court. He also threatened me in the open Court that nobody can do anything and that only days are remained for me."
To the same effect is the report of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile), Mulug. The relevant portion of his report reads as under:
"While so, on 11-10-1995 at about evening time, Sri Prakash Rao threatened that he would set fire to the Court and also the Court records and will blast the Court building and that (he) will see the end of the officers (myself and the regular Munsif Magistrate) and that how we survive in Mulug. I am bewildered and perturbed with his utterences and my conscience was telling me that there is some danger to my life at the hands of the Advocate Sri Prakash Rao. When this incident happened, two of my staff members who were present then have, of their own, came forward and prepared to give statements. I have accordingly recorded their sworn statements in the open Court, after taking oath."
On receipt of the said reports, the District Judge, Warangal, instructed the District Munsif, Mulug, to record the statements of the Court staff, who were present at the time when the incident took place and forward the same to him. Accordingly, the District Munsif, Mulug, recorded the statements of four staff members and forwarded the same to the District Judge, Warangal. Thereupon, he reported the matter to the Registrar (Management) High Court of A.P. through his letter dt.21-10-1995. The said letter was placed before the concerned Portfolio Judge of the District for orders as to taking cognizance of Contempt of Court against the contemner or to forward the material to the learned Advocate General for taking appropriate action. The learned Portfolio Judge by endorsement dt.16-12-1995 recommended for taking suo moto cognizance of contempt of Court. Thereupon, as per the orders of the Hon''ble the Chief Justice, the matter was listed before us on judicial side on 25-1-1996. On perusal of the material placed before us we decided to take suo motu cognizance and issued notice to the contemner to show cause why he should not be convicted for contempt of Court for having indulged in unbecoming and aggressive behaviour towards the District Munsif, Mulug, namely, Sri K. Ramesh and Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile), Mulug, namely, Sri K. Balarama Raju; for making derogatory remarks against the said officers; for threatening them saying that he would see their end; for threatening to set fire to the Court and Court records; and for threatening to blast the Court building etc.
Pursuant to the notice, the contemner filed a written statement denying all the allegations, in general and the occurrence alleged to have taken place on 11-10-1995 in particular. The written statement with regard to the alleged occurrence on 11-10-1995 reads as follows:
"........ There is no truth in the said allegations. In fact I was admitted as in-patient in Sri Raghavendra Nursing Home at Hanmakonda on 10-10-1995 at 10-30 p.m. and discharged on 12-10-1995 at 8-30 p.m. referring me to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal as my case is Medico-legal case. I submit that on 10-10-95 while I was going to Warangal where I am residing which is 45 KMs. away from Mulug on a scooter along with one Journalist Sri S.Mohan Rao, the Vice-President of Working Journalists Union, Andhra Pradesh, Warangal Branch at about 8-30 p.m. when we reached between Pandikunta and Mallampalli villages the dacoits have suddenly attacked us with sticks and we fell down from the scooter beside the road and due to the incident I got severe leg injury and the dacoits also beat us with sticks apart from taking money and watches from us. However, they released us from their custody after 15 to 20 minutes. I submit that I was admitted in Sri Raghavendra Nursing Home at about 10-30 p.m. on 10-10-1995 and I underwer treatment for two days as in-patient and discharged from the Nursing home on 12-10-1995 at 8-30 p.m. referring the case to Government M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal as it is Medico-legal case, on 13-10-1995 I took the treatment at M.G.M. Hospital as out-patient. It is relevant to submit here that I was actually unable to walk at that time due to the leg injury and the Doctor advised me to take bed rest and treatment in the hospital but I have refused to admit as in-patient in the Hospital due to inadequate sanitation and over-crowded situation at the Hospital and Doctor took my right leg X-ray and directed me to the Head Constable on duty in Police Out-post of M.G.M. Hospital; as it is Medico-legal case the Head Constable has recorded my statement about the dacoits attack on 10-10-1995."
In view of the total denial of the occurrence by the contemner, we by order dt.4-5-1996 directed the District & Sessions Judge, Warangal to make an enquiry into the matter and submit his report within six weeks. Pursuant thereto, Sri N. Vidya Prasad, District & Sessions Judge, Warangal, held a detailed enquiry. In the course of the said enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Ex.A-1 was marked on the side of the complainant and R.Ws.l to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-13 were marked on behalf of the contemner. On consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the learned District Judge held that there was absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and consequently the plea of alibi set up by the contemner is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, he submitted his report dt.9-9-1997 to this Court. A copy of the said report was furnished to the contemner to which he submitted his objections. He assailed the report on the ground that P.Ws.1 to 6 gave false evidence at the behest of the District Munsif and the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile), Mulug; their evidence suffers from many improbabilities and contradictions and the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced on his side to establish his plea of alibi is trustworthy and deserves acceptance.
We have heard Sri Noori Meherchand, Special Government Pleader that represented the learned Advocate General and Sri E.V.S. Acharyulu, representing Sri K. Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel for the contemner. They have taken us through the entire material on record. Also, we perused the written arguments submitted by them.
On the contentions raised at the hearing, the points for our consideration may be formulated as under:
(1) Whether the contemner was present in the Court premises at Mulug or undergoing treatment in Raghavendra Maternity and Surgical Nursing Home at Warangal on 11-10-1995 between 3 and 4-30 p.m.?
(2) Whether the contemner is guilty of contempt of Court and if so what would be the just and proper punishment?
Point No. 1: To substantiate the case that the contemner was present in the Court premises at Mulug on 11-10-1995 between 3-30 p.m. and 4-30 p.m. there is the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 recorded by the District & Sessions Judge, Warangal apart from the reports dt.13-10-1995 of the District Munsif, Mulug and Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile), Mulug. As against this, there is the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.B-1, B-2, B-10 to B-13 to prove the plea of alibi set up by the contemner that (he) was undergoing treatment in Sri Raghavendra Maternity and Surgical Nursing Home at Warangal during the same point of time.
First, we will consider the plea of alibi set up by the contemner, for if it is accepted, the allegation that the contemner was present in the office of District Munsif at Mulug would fall to the ground. As already noted above, on this aspect there is evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.B-1, B-2, B-5, B-6 and B-10 to B-13.
R.W.1 is no other than the contemner himself. His evidence and the plea as set out in counter-affidavit as well as objections to the report submitted by District & Sessions Judge, Warangal is that on 10-10-1995 around 7 p.m. himself and R.W.2 started on a scooter from Mulug to go to Warangal. On the way they were attacked by the dacoits between Mallempalli and Jakara. Both of them fell down from the scooter and he sustained injuries on his right leg and other parts of the body. R.W.2 was also beaten up and relieved of his wrist watch and a cash of Rs. 200/-. After the dacoits left the scene, they reached Mulug Road junction in Warangal around 10 p.m. and telephoned to Mulug Police Station. The person who lifted the phone stated that he would come the next day. R.W.2 dropped him at his residence. Thereafter his wife took him to Raghavendra Maternity and Surgical Nursing Home and admitted him there as in-patient. R.W.3 gave him the necessary treatment. On his request, he was discharged on 12-10-1995 around 8-30 p.m. He got himself discharged with a view to get himself admitted (in) M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal as it was a Medico-legal case. Next day morning i.e., 13-10-1995 he joined in M.G.M. Hospital at Warangal. X-ray of his leg was taken in the Hospital. The Doctor who treated him gave information to Matwada Police Out-post. His statement was recorded in the hospital by the police of Matwada Police Station and thereafter he was discharged.
R.W.2, a free lance journalist, has been examined to corroborate the version of R.W.1. He deposed that the contents of his affidavit, which has been marked as Exs.B-1 and B-10, are true and correct. Ex.B-1 is the original and Ex.B-10 is its photostat copy. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:
"I submit that, on 10-10-1995 at 7 p.m. I have started from my agricultural farm at Lingapur to go to Warangal on my scooter. When I reached the bus-stand Mulug Mr. Prakash Rao, Advocate is waiting there for bus to go to Warangal. I have offered lift to him on my scooter and we proceeded to Warangal. On the way at about 8-30 p.m. we were attacked by dacoits between Pandikunta and Mallampalli village. In the said attack I and Mr. Prakash Rao received injuries. We were fell down from the scooter. Due to falling of scooter Mr. Prakash Rao has received leg injury. At that time I was able to drive the scooter with great pain but Mr. Prakash Rao is unable to walk due to the severe leg injury. We reached Warangal at 10-30 p.m. and Mr. Prakash Rao was admitted in Sri Raghavendra Nursing Home, Hanamkonda on the same night. I have visited the Hospital on 11-10-1995 at 5 p.m. to enquire about the health of Mr. Prakash Rao. He was still taking the treatment in the hospital at that time."
In the course of cross-examination, he admits that there is Atmakur Police Station between Pandikunta and Warangal; but they did not give any report there. He also admits that he has not given anything in writing to the police at Mulug about the incident. He further stated that he did not make any enquiry whether Mulug Police Station had taken up any investigation.
We have carefully scanned the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2. It suffers from many improbabilites and contradictions. Suffice it to say that it does not inspire confidence for the following reasons. R.W.1 is an Advocate and R.W.2 is a journalist. It can reasonably be presumed that they know the legal necessity, though not an obligation, to give a report to the police in order to set the investigation in motion. Yet, they took no steps whatsoever to give a report either at Atmakur P.S., which is between the alleged place of dacoity and Warangal or in any Police Station at Warangal after reaching there at 10-30 p.m. Their version that they telephoned to Mulug P.S., from Warangal cannot be believed in view of the admission of R.W.2 that he did not try to find out whether Mulug Police have taken up any investigation or not. The affidavit of R.W.2, which has been marked as Exs.B-1 and B-10 is in complete variance with the evidence of R.W.1. R.W.1 stated in his evidence that he was dropped by R.W.2 at his residence at Warangal and his wife took him to the Nursing Home of R.W.3, whereas in Ex.B-10 R.W.2 makes a sworn statement that they reached Warangal at 10-30 p.m. and R.W.1 was admitted in Sri Raghavendra Maternity and Surgical Nursing Home. He did not state in his affidavit that he dropped R.W.1 at his residence. It is not the evidence of R.W.1 that R.W.2 visited the Nursing Home of R.W.3 on 11-10-1995 at 5 p.m. as sworn to by R.W.2 in his affidavit, Ex.B-10.
R.W.3 is the Doctor, who claims to have treated R.W.1 in his Nursing Home, called, Sri Raghavendra Maternity and Surgical Nursing Home. He deposed that the contents of his affidavit which has been marked as Exs.B-2 and B-l 1 are true and correct. He also states that Ex.B-12 is the original case sheet maintained in his hospital relating to the treatment of R.W.1 and Ex.B-13 is the Admission Register of his Nursing Home. Ex.B-2 is the original of his affidavit and Ex.B-11 is its photostat copy. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows:
"I submit that, on 10-10-95 at 10-30 p.m. Mr. V. Prakash Rao, Advocate was brought to my hospital with severe injuries. Mr. Prakash Rao was unable to walk at that time due to leg injury. I have advised him to take treatment as in-patient at least for two days. Accordingly Mr. Prakash Rao was admitted in my Nursing Home at the same time. I have treated him from 10-10-95 at 10-30p.m. to 12-10-1995 as in-patient in my Hospital. On the request of Mr. Prakash Rao I have discharged him on 12-10-1995."
It is significant to note that Ex.B-11 is silent about the salient fact that R.W.1 sustained the injuries in the course of attack by the dacoits. Further, R.W.3 stated at one breath in the course of cross-examination that P.W.I (sic. R.W.1) did not tell him that he had a simple fall from the scooter and he was attacked by dacoits. At another breath, he stated that he admitted him (R.W.1) in his Nursing Home as he was told that the police was already informed of the alleged attack by dacoits on phone. He admitted that in M.G.M. Hospital admissions would be made round the clock. Yet, he does not come forward with any explanation for not advising R.W.1 to go to M.G.M. Hospital. Ex.B-12 is the alleged case sheet relating to R.W.1. It is also silent about the alleged attack by the dacoits. Ex.B-13 is the admission register for the period from 1-1-1994 to 2-3-1996. The District & Sessions Judge, Warangal refused to act upon the same and his reasons therefore read as under:
"The next important aspect is that Ex.B-13 Admission Register was maintained upto March, 1996 only. From Sri V. Prakash Rao, R.W.3 did not collect any amount. On a perusal of Ex.B-13 Register it appears to be brand new one, though it is maintained from 1-1-1994. At pages 23, 24 and 25 white fluid used for erasing typed matter to cover up what was palmed. There are gaps in the Register. Astonishingly the entire register is in the handwriting of Dr. Balavanth Rao only. He admits that in January alone the names of two patients were filled up and struck off. He says for Maternity Hospital he is maintaining a separate register. As already stated, the casual look at Ex.B-13 Register smacks that it is manufactured for specific purpose and it cannot be believed."
We entirely agree with the said reasoning.
Ex.B-5 is the news item published in Andhra Prabha on 14-10-1995. True, it was reported therein that R.Ws.l and 2 are attacked by the dacoits on the night of 10th October, 1995. Ex.B-6 is the out-patient slip dt.13-10-1995 of the M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. As the former was dated 14-10-1995 and the latter was dated 13-10-1995, we are of the view that they do not in any way help the plea of alibi set up by the contemner.
The evidence of P.W.5, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mulug, completely belies the story of the contemner. According to the contemner, he was discharged from the Nursing Home at Warangal on 12-10-1995 at 8-30 p.m. But, P.W.5 deposed that on 12-10-1995 around 7-30 a.m. the contemner along with R.W.2 came and told him that on the previous night when they were going to Warangal they were stopped by the dacoits at Pandikunta. He further added that when he asked them whether they sustained any injuries, they specifically stated that they did not receive any injuries. Except a bald suggestion that he gave false evidence with a view to help the Magistrate, nothing substantial has been elicited from him so as to discredit his testimony. On earnest consideration, we have no reason to reject this version of P.W.5.
In the light of the above discussion, we firmly believe that the plea of alibi set up by the contemner is false and concocted. It is, accordingly, rejected.
Now, we shall deal with the presence of the contemner in the premises of the Court at Mulug on 11-10-1995 between 3-30 p.m. and 4-30 p.m. On this aspect, as already stated, there are the reports dt.13-10-1995 of the District Munsif, Mulug and the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile), Mulug and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6. The relevant portions of the reports dt.13-10-1995 have already been extracted above. In both the reports, it is specifically stated that the contemner was present in the Court premises at Mulug in the evening of 11th October, 1995. However, it is strenuously contended by the learned Counsel for the contemner that the said reports have no evidentiary value for the reason that their authors did not choose to examine themselves before the District & Sessions Judge, Warangal, who held the enquiry into the matter, with the result the contemner had no opportunity to cross-examine them. We are unable to countenance this submission, for, it is not brought to our notice that any request has been made before the District and Sessions Judge, Warangal to cross-examine the two officers who reported against him and such a request has been rejected. It is well settled that in the procedure of contempt there is no hard and fast rule except of fairness and justice and the strict rules of evidence have no application. On this aspect, the views of Full Bench of Patna High Court in In the Matter of In Re: Basanta Chandra Ghosh, Advocate and Others, have been edited and head-noted as under:
"It is no doubt true that when a witness is examined in a judicial proceeding, the examination of the witness and his statements must be subject to the rules of evidence laid down in the Evidence Act; and it is also no doubt true that the proceeding in contempt is a judicial proceeding. In view however of the summary nature of the enquiry the strict rules of evidence do not apply to this class of cases. Thus, the provisions of the Evidence Act do not apply to the reception of materials against the contemner in a contempt proceeding which only necessitates that the proceeding must be based on fairness and justice to the respondent, and although there be anything on record to show, where a fact has to be established by proof, that there is a lacuna in the material which will throw a reasonable doubt on the evidence of a state of facts, it need not be construed in favour of the person proceeded against."
The same view has been approved in In re: Vinay Chandra Mishra (the alleged contemner), . In the instant case, copies of reports dt.13-10-1995 were furnished to the contemner and he had every opportunity to rebut their contents. In fact he did rebut the same. In this view of the matter and in the light of the principles enunciated above, we see no justification to discard them altogether. Instead, we consider it just and proper to test their veracity in the light of other evidence of (sic. and) material on record.
Another strange argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the contemner is that the present contempt proceedings should be dropped for the reason that the Disciplinary Committee No. II of the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh has exonerated the contemner of the complaint relating to the incident, which is the subject matter of the present case. In support thereof he filed a copy of the order dt.5-7-97 in C.C.No. 44/96 after the arguments are over and the matter is posted for judgment. We are sorry we cannot look into these papers for they do not form part of the enquiry in the present contempt case. Moreover, we are of the firm view that the decision of the Bar Council is totally irrelevant and it does not bind us.
Then, we come to the evidence recorded by the District & Sessions Judge, Warangal. In this regard, we have carefully scanned the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6. P.W.1 is the Head Clerk of Munsif Magistrate''s Court, Mulug. P.W.2 is the Bench Clerk in Mobile Court, Mulug. P.W.3 is the U.D.C. in Mobile Court, Mulug. P.W.4 is the Junior Assistant in Munsif Magistrate''s Court, Mulug. P.W.6 is the constable attached to Mulug P.S. All of them speak about the presence of the contemner on 11-10-1995 in the office of the District Munsif at Mulug. Their evidence is uniform and consistent except with regard to the time of the alleged occurrence. P.Ws.1 to 3 and 6 deposed that the alleged occurrence took place between 4 and 4-30 p.m. whereas P.W.4 stated it was between 1 and 1-30 p.m. On that score, learned Counsel for the contemner assails the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 6. However, we are of the considered view that minor variations with regard to time do not make any difference when the substance of their evidence is the same. Apart from their evidence, there is the evidence of P.W.5, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mulug. He deposed that P.W.6, who attended the Court at Mulug on 11-10-1995 returned to police station at 6 p.m. and informed him that the contemner shouted in the office room of Munsif Magistrate at Mulug and abused the Magistrates. Also, there are the reports dt.13-10-1995 of the District Munsif, Mulug and the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile)/ Mulug submitted to the District Judge, Warangal, which specifically refer to the time and place of occurrence. Thus, there is overwhelming evidence to establish the contemner''s presence in the office of the District Munsif at Mulug on 11-10-1995 between 4 and 4-30 p.m. We hold accordingly. The first point is thus answered.
Point No. 2: Section 2(a), (b) and (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines the contempt of Court as follows:
"(a) "contempt of Court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt;
(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court;
(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any Court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;"
The utterances made by the contemner are clearly stated by P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 in their evidence. They are recorded in Telugu, the language used by the contemner. The English version of the same may be stated as under:
"The bail application filed by me has been rejected; injustice is being done to me; I will not get justice in the Court; adjournments are being granted on the mere request of the Asst. Public Prosecutor; Sureties are not accepted for the simple reason that the surety could not give the father''s name of the accused; I will come again at 6 p.m. and if bail is not granted in the meanwhile, the Court and the Court records will be set fire. I would blast the Court; the District Munsif does not know anything and he has become a Judicial Officer by the grace of God; I do not know what I do and he can report to whomsoever he likes."
We have already accepted the evidence of the above witnesses with regard to presence of the contemner at the relevant time. It follows, the above version of theirs is also correct, for they have no axe to grind against the contemner. Therefore, there can be no hesitation to conclude that the above utterances do constitute criminal contempt as defined u/s 2(c). It is not even urged before us that the above utterances do not constitute criminal contempt. In this view of the matter, we hold that the contemner committed criminal contempt punishable u/s 12 of the Act.
Then remains the question of awarding proper punishment. In this context, it is apt to refer to the views of the Supreme Court made in V.C. Mishra''s case (2 supra) on the role of Judiciary in a democratic society, its powers and duties and the purpose for which the Courts are entrusted with the power to punish for contempt of Courts. Speaking for the Court, Sawant, J. observed:
"The rule of law is the foundation of the democratic society. The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence judiciary is not only the third pillar, but the central pillar of the democratic State. In a democracy like ours, where there is a written Constitution which is above all individuals and institutions and where the power of judicial review is vested in the superior Courts, the judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform, viz., to oversee that all individual and institutions including the Executive and the Legislature act within the framework of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to peaceful and orderly development of the society. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will gave way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. It is for this purpose that the Courts are entrusted with the extraordinary power of punishing those who indulge in acts whether inside or outside the Courts, which tend to undermine their authority and bring them in disrepute and disrespect by scandalising them and obstructing them from discharging their duties without fear or favour. When the Court exercises this power, it does not do so to vindicate the dignity and honour of the individual judge who is personally attacked or scandalised, but to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the Court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded."
Viewed in the light of the above observations, the act committed by the contemner is most reprehensible. It is clear that he intended to create terror in the minds of the judicial officers with a view to extract orders from them in his favour irrespective of the merit of the case. He created such a situation that they could not discharge their duties fearlessly. Their reports dt.13-10-1995 clearly go to show that they were really afraid of their lives and the safety of the Court building. It is well known that Mulug is an area interested with extremists. The Court building at Mulug was already blasted once. Having regard to these facts, we are of the considered view that mere imposition of fine on the contemner will not meet the ends of justice and he should be meted out with sentence of imprisonment.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find the contemner, Sri V. Prakash Rao, Advocate, Mulug, Warangal District, guilty of the offence of criminal contempt of the Court and sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. This contempt case is, accordingly, disposed of.
An oral request is made for suspension of the judgment to move the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in appeal. Considering the request the judgment is suspended for a period of one month i.e., up to 25th October, 1997 to enable the respondent to move the Supreme Court in appeal.