RAMA DAYAL MARKARHA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Advocate, the appellant in this appeal under S. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, by a Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court for committing criminal contempt by scandalising or tending to scandalise, or lowering or tending to lower the authority of the Court of Additional District Magistrate (J), Umaria, then presided over by Shri A. N. Thakur, by publishing a pamphlet on 1st January 1974 commenting upon a judgment rendered by Shri Thakur in a criminal case of which he had taken cognizance on a challan filed by the police upon a report made by one Lal Chand against Betai Lal and his servant Abdul Majid. The High Court took cognizance of the criminal contempt alleged to have been committed by the appellant upon a reference made to it by the Presiding Officer of the Court of Additional District Magistrate (J) under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(2.) A resume of the events leading to the reference may be briefly noticed. One Lalchand, a tenant, reported at the police station that his landlord Betai Lal and landlord"s servant Abdul Majid committed criminal trespass into the premises in his occupation and removed from sheets which he had placed in the terrace to arrest leaking of rain water in the premises and that as the water leaked through the terrace the goods stored in the premises were damaged and accordingly Betai Lal and Abdul Majid committed offences under Sections 451 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. After completing investigation a charge sheet was submitted in the Court of Addl. District Magistrate (J). The accused were represented by the present appellant who is a senior practising advocate in Umaria, District Sahdol (M.P.). The learned Magistrate upon appreciation of evidence concluded that both the charges were brought home to the accused and passed sentence considered appropriate by him. The conviction and sentence were questioned in an appeal preferred by the accused in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria, who by his judgment and order dated 21st December 1973 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. Soon thereafter, the offending pamphlet was published by the appellant. Shri Thakur having come to know of the publication made a reference to the High Court for initiating action for contempt of court against the appellant. That is how the matter came before the High Court.

(3.) In the reference made by the Court of Additional District Magistrate (J.), certain passages were extracted from the pamphlet as indicating the attitude of the appellant towards the Presiding Officer and the Court and further stated that "the publication tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the judge and it also deters actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court"s administration of justice" and thus scandalised the court and the presiding officer as well as lowered the authority of the court. The original pamphlet is in Hindi. The High Court had before it the translation which but for minor variation as suggested by the appellant, has been accepted by both sides as correctly reproducing what has been stated in Hindi. These passages posed as questions may be reproduced in extenso: