The Advocate-General vs Sri S. Ramakrishna Reddy

M.N. Rao, J.—This contempt case was filed by the Advocate General for initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondent herein - S. Ramakrishna Reddy, an Advocate of 32 years standing, practising at Siddipet in Medak district, Andhra Pradesh.

On 22-6-1993, the respondent had submitted a "memorandum of complaint" in the form of an affidavit to the Chief Justice of this Court making certain serious allegations against Sri K.V.L. Narasimharao, the Subordinate Judge, Siddipet, casting aspersions against his integrity and impartiality in the discharge of judicial functions and requesting for proper1 action against the officer. The respondent had circulated a copy of the affidavit in advance to the members of the Bar Association, Siddipet. The respondent also submitted a written complaint to the District Judge, Medak on 21 -9-1993 alleging that after he submitted the affidavit to the Chief Justice complaining against the conduct of the Subordinate Judge, Siddipet, both the judicial officers in Siddipet - the Subordinate Judge, Sri Narasimha Rao and the District Munsif cum Magistrate, P. Prabhakar - started victimising him. He alleged that there was exchange of arguments between him and the Munsif Magistrate in the Court in connection with an objection petition filed u/s 47 of the CPC and about that he made a complaint to the Subordinate Judge against the Munsif. He also alleged that bearing grudge against him, the District Munsif started passing adverse orders in order to pull him down in the profession. In several cases, orders were passed against the interests of his clients and as an instance, he mentioned about the order passed in E.P. No. 9 of 1993.

The District Judge, Medak, called for the remarks of both the officers, who filed their affidavits denying all the allegations levelled against them by the respondent. After issuing notice to the respondent, the District Judge conducted an enquiry and submitted two reports to this Court - one dated 25-11-1993 in respect of the allegations made against the Subordinate Judge and the other dated 27-11-1993 concerning the allegations made against the District Munsif - to the effect that all the allegations levelled by the respondent against both the officers are false, baseless and mischievous and he requested the High Court to take proper action against the respondent. Out of the 26 members comprising the Siddipet Bar Association, 23, including the President of the Association, gave affidavits before the District Judge condemning the conduct of the respondent in making scurrilous attacks against the Subordinate Judge. The District Judge said that the accusations against the Subordinate Judge are "totally false, most scandalous and also contemptuous in nature."

Coming to the specific instances, the first allegation made by the respondent against the Subordinate Judge is that he filed vakalat on behalf of one of the defendants in a suit and he filed a memo dated 14-7-1992 adopting the written statement filed by the other contesting defendants, and that the Subordinate Judge found fault with him for using the expression "adapts" instead of the correct expression "adopts" and prevailed upon him to make the correction accordingly. When he brought to the notice of the Subordinate Judge that the proper word is only "adapt", his attitude was mistaken and the officer developed hostility and vindictive attitude towards him. The District Judge had verified the record and found that in the memo filed on behalf of the fourth defendant by the respondent, the expression used is "adopts" and that there was no correction in the memo at all. The allegation levelled by the respondent is totally false and that he has no respect and regard for truth.

The second specific instance relates to the disposal of O.P. No. 3 of 1993 by the Subordinate Judge, filed u/s 14 of the Arbitration Act. That petition was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on merits according to law against which an appeal was preferred by the respondent and the same was pending at the relevant time on the file of the Additional District Court, Sangareddy. When the dismissal order was pronounced by the Subordinate Judge on 30-3-1993, the respondent, who was present in the Court, became furious and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a civilised person and the expressions used by him were very indecent. But the Subordinate Judge did not take any action in order to maintain cordiality between the Bench and the Bar. The only statement made by the Subordinate Judge was that if the respondent was aggrieved, it was open to him to prefer an appeal.

The third allegation against the Subordinate Judge was that when the respondent made an application before the Subordinate Judge expressing want of faith after the orders were pronounced in O.P. No. 3 of 1993 and requesting that all the cases in which he was appearing may be adjourned to longer dates in order to enable him to take appropriate steps, the Subordinate Judge, out of indignation and irritation, suo motu had advanced all his matters and posted them ''massively'' to 16-8-1993 without any notice and intimation. After verifying the record, the learned District Judge, in his report, had stated that after filing the application for adjournment of all his matters to longer dates, the respondent did not move either the District Court or the High Court for transfer of his cases from the Court of the Subordinate Judge and that no matter in which the respondent was appearing was taken up for hearing by the Subordinate Judge. Having obtained longer dates of adjournments in all his matters, the respondent again went on filing memos into the Court requesting that his cases may be taken up for hearing.

The fourth allegation is common to both the Subordinate Judge and the Munsif Magistrate: they both were playing indoor games during Court hours with the advocates and when the respondent resented their action, it was not liked by them. The report of the District Judge is that the Advocates informed him that it was customary on 26th January (Republic Day) to conduct games, in which both Advocates, Judicial Officers and staff members participate, and this practice was continued for the purpose of maintaining cordiality between the advocates and the Judicia1 Officers and the staff. No indoor games were played at any time during Court hours.

The fifth allegation is that the Subordinate Judge went in a car to attend the marriage at the house of one of the former Judicial Officers and he included the name of the Advocate, who arranged the car, in the panel of names for consideration for appointment as Assistant Government pleader. The report of the District Judge is to the effect that the Bar Association was informed well in advance in writing by the Subordinate Judge inviting applications for the post of Assistant Government Pleader, that the respondent had submitted his application long after the due date and, therefore, the same was returned to him. The President of the Bar Association stated before the District Judge that as he was going in his car to attend the marriage of the daughter of the former District Munsif, he requested some other advocates and the Judicial Officers also to accompany him in the car. The District Judge recorded a finding in his report that there is no connection between the officer going in the car to attend the marriage and the submission of the penal of advocates for consideration for the post of Assistant Government Pleader.

The sixth allegation is that the respondent was appointed as a receiver in I.P. No. 1/89 on the file of the Sub-Court, Siddipet to take charge of one table, two chairs and a small show-case and that he was insulted in the open Court by the Subordinate Judge by saying that being a senior advocate, he was not fit to discharge his duties as a simple receiver. The District Judge in his report says that on verification of the records in I.P. No. 1/89, he found that "it is a case where there are no movable or immovable properties and the respondent Ramakrishna Reddy was appearing in that I.P., for the second respondent and, therefore, tine allegation that Ramakrishna Reddy was appointed as a receiver and he was insulted by the Subordinate Judge was totally false."

The last allegation is that the Subordinate Judge called the advocates to his chambers to ascertain their attitude towards the respondent after pronouncing the orders in O.P. No. 3 of 1993 in order to know their mind. The District Judge''s report says that this allegation is totally false and no advocate was invited by the Subordinate Judge to his chambers after the orders were pronounced in O.P. No. 3 of 1993.

Out of 16 matters in which the respondent appeared before the Subordinate Judge, he succeeded in eight and the District Judge says that the allegation that he was subjected to victimisation was totally false.

Against the District Munsif, the respondent made four specific allegations in his complaint submitted to the District Judge. The first allegation is that the Subordinate Judge and the Munsif were vindictive against him and started victimising him. The second allegation is that the District Munsif extended undue help to all the others in civil matters regardless of merits. The report of the District Judge is to the effect that out of 12 criminal cases in which the respondent appeared for the accused in the Court of the Munsif Magistrate, 11 ended in acquittal and in 11 interlocutory applications on the civil side in which the respondent appeared, he succeeded in six matters. In about 19 civil suits (money, title suits and rent control petitions) in which the respondent appeared, he succeeded in six. The allegation that the Munsif Magistrate was vindictive towards him was found to be utterly baseless.

The third allegation is that there was exchange of words between the District Munsif and the respondent in connection with an objection taken on a petition filed u/s 47 of the CPC and when the respondent made a complaint to the Subordinate Judge against the District Munsif, the latter became hostile and vindictive towards him. The District Judge''s report shows that no complaint was ever made by the respondent to the Subordinate Judge against the District Munsif in connection with the objection raised in regard to the petition filed u/s 47 C.P.C.

The last allegation against the District Munsif is that when the respondent filed a cheque petition in E.P. No. 9 of 1993, it was returned as not maintainable and when he tried to convince the District Munsif about its maintainability, the officer behaved in an ugly manner. About this, the finding of the District Judge is that the respondent actually filed the cheque petition for issuing a cheque in his name without filing the affidavit of the party and without any documents signed by the decree-holder and as the same was not in accordance with the rules, it was returned with objections. But the respondent, without complying with the objections, threatened the officer using scandalous expressions. The actual expressions used by him, according to the affidavit filed by one Sri Sai Baba, Advocate who was present in the Court, were: "this is not children''s play; is it a cattle-shed? I will show my power and put him in a proper place". These words he uttered in a very loud and threatening manner.

As already stated, the Bar Association of Siddipet consists of 26 members. Before the District Judge, as many as 23 filed affidavits to the effect that the two judicial officers are known for their integrity, honesty and objectivity and the respondent is in the .habit of threatening the officers, he shouts in the Court in order to create an impression in the minds of the other advocates and the litigant public and also the officer about his prominence, he is highly combative and quarrelsome and disposed to making scurrilous attacks on the Judicial Officers in older to terrorise them.

The respondent, in his counter-affidavit, while denying the allegations, has pleaded mat the contempt case is not maintainable since the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case was sworn to by one Padmanabham, Section Officer in the Office of the Advocate-General. He asserted that the report of the District Judge is not entitled to any credence. It is bad since it was based on the affidavits filed by the Advocates some of whom were appearing against him and that he had no opportunity to meet the allegations levelled against him. He also characterised the report of the District Judge as one-sided and stated that the initiation of contempt proceedings on the basis of such a report is unwarranted. While stating that he has utmostrespect for the presiding officers, he asserted that he did not make any allegations questioning the integrity and honesty of either the Subordinate Judge or the District Munsif. According to him, what all he did was only in the interests of the judiciary and that he never wanted to denigrate the dignity of the Court or to cast any aspersions on its presiding officers. After trying to justify his actions, towards the end, in paragraph 13 of his counter-affidavit, he said:

"..... I regret for what had happened in the Courts of the learned Subordinate Judge and the Munsif Magistrate. I also regret for making written representation to this Hon''ble Court and the District & Sessions Judge. I apologise unconditionally for what had happened."

The objection taken by the respondent as regards the maintainability of the contempt case is totally untenable. The matter was referred on the administrative side to. the Advocate-General by the High Court for initiating action against the respondent. On the basis of the records, the affidavit was sworn to by Sri K. Padmanabham, the Section Officer in the office of the Advocate-General. Rule 5 of die Contempt of Court Rules, framed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh says, inter alia, that except in matters relating to contempt committed in the presence or hearing of the High Court, the High Court may take cognisance of contempt: (a) suo motu, or (b) on a petition made by the Advocate-General of the State of Andhra Pradesh, or (c) on a petition made by any person, and in the case of Criminal Contempt, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General of the State of Andhra Pradesh; or (d) on a reference made to it by a Court Subordinate to it in the case of any contempt of such subordinate Court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General of the State of Andhra Pradesh in that behalf. Rule 6 lays down that every case of contempt shall be in the form of a petition supported by an affidavit. In the present case, the petition filed by the Advocate-General is supported by an affidavit sworn to by the Section Officer in the office of the Advocate-General and the contents of the affidavit are based upon "the records furnished by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh". It cannot, therefore, be said that the present contempt case is not maintainable. An objection of a similar nature was considered and rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in Advocate-General v. R. Subba Rao, 1989(1) ALT 55 at 65 observing:

"One of the objections raised by the respondent is that the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case was sworn to by the Private Secretary to the Advocate-General but not by the Advocate-General personally. An affidavit is only a statement of facts. None of the facts sworn to in the affidavit are based upon the personal knowledge of the Private Secretary to the Advocate-General. What all he had narrated in the affidavit are only facts borne out by the records. It is, therefore, quite immaterial whosoever swears to the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case. It is only in cases where the facts within the personal knowledge of the declarant are to be narrated, the necessity arises for such a person to declare the facts and swear to the affidavit. But when the affidavit contains the statement of facts contained in public documents, namely, Court records, it is not necessary that the Advocate-General should personally swear to the affidavit."

Sri Ramana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, has stated that this Court may accept the apology tendered by the respondent and close the proceedings. We are not inclined to do so. The conduct of the respondent is clearly contumacious. He made false allegations against the two Judicial Officers. The records examined by the District Judge clearly establish that the allegations are unfounded. He was not appointed as a receiver in any insolvency proceedings but on the other hand, he was appearing for one of the parties thereto. Still he had chosen to make a written allegation against the Subordinate Judge that he was insulted by the officer in the Court that he was not fit to be an official receiver. His allegation that he tried to correct the Subordinate Judge''s poor knowledge of English as regards the use of the expression "adapt" is totally belied by the record. Out of the 26 Advocates, 23 gave affidavits against: him testifying his combative nature, his disposition to attack the Judicial Officers and terrorise them. After excluding him, there remained only two other members of the Bar, who did not file affidavits. It is noteworthy that even those two advocates also did not come forward to say." anything in support of the respondent before the District Judge. The enquiry was conducted by the District Judge after giving notices to the respondent and the Bar Association.

There are no good reasons to infer that the respondent was interested in the purity of administration of justice and, therefore, he made complaints believing them honestly to be true to the High Court against the officers. He submitted an advance copy of his affidavit to the Bar Association and the Bar Association after discussing the contents of the affidavit, came to the conclusion that all of them were false and the respondent was requested not to submit the same to the High Court. In spite of it, the respondent had chosen to submit to the Chief Justice of this Court, his affidavit containing false, mischievous and scurrilous allegations against the Subordinate Judge. He, thus, gave wide publicity to what he intended to do and this was done, according to us, in the circumstances, only with an oblique motive to bring the administration of justice into disrespect. He scandalised the authority of the Court and tried to bring it down by his false accusations.

Being a Senior Advocate of 32 years standing at the Bar, he tried to gain an unfair advantage by insisting that the cheque should be given in his name without filing the affidavit of the decree-holder. He was aware of the clear legal position but he tried to bamboozle and over-awe the Judicial Officer in the open court by threatening to show his power. Not satisfied with that, he made a written complaint against the District Munsif making a false allegation as to what happened in connection with the passing of orders on the cheque petition. One of the advocates, who was present in the Court, gave an affidavit describing in verbatim the scurrilous attacks made by the respondent against the officer in the open Court. He has no regard for decency and decorum. His attitude appears to be to terrorise judicial officers and show his prominence to everybody with a view to gain unfair advantage as a legal practitioner. His plea in the counter-affidavit that he was interested in the purity of administration of justice is only a camouflage to gain sympathy of the Court. His attempts to justify his conduct and his offer to tender unconditional apology do not go together. We do not find any bona fides in his expression of regrets. In a deliberate and calculated manner, he tried to denigrate the two judicial officers - the Subordinate Judge and the District Munsif. A Full Bench of this Court speaking through one of us, M.N. Rao, j., after reviewing the case law on contempt of Court observed:

"Any attack on the competence and integrity of a judge, whether of a superior Court or a subordinate Court, amounts to scandalizing the Court itself. If an apprehension is created in the public mind about the integrity, ability or fairness of a judge, it is a contempt of Court. Affirmatively it need not be proved that there is an interference with the administration of justice. An individual occupying a judicial office cannot be treated apart from his office in respect of the work he does in the Court."2- See Advocate-General v. Rachapudi Stibba Rao; 1990 (3) ALT 531 at 561 (F.B.)

The conduct of the respondent falls clearly within the ambit of the definition of criminal contempt u/s 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act. We do not find any extenuating circumstances inducing us to take a lenient view.

For the foregoing reasons, we convict the respondent for criminal contempt u/s 2(c) read with Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand) in default, S.I. for 2 weeks (Two weeks).

The contempt case is accordingly allowed.

Note: The fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- has been paid by Mr. M. Ravindernath Reddy, Advocate on behalf of Contemnor on 12-9-1994.