(1.) The appellant has been convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by his conviction and the order of payment of fine, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Act.
(2.) The charges framed against the appellant were as under:-
(3.) The complainant and the appellant had led evidence in support of their versions. The High Court believing the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 held that Ravi was in possession of the shop in question and therein business was carried on in the name of 'Ladies Corner'. The High Court did not believe the evidence led by the appellant as it was found to be inconsistent and improbable and recorded the finding that the appellant was fully aware of the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court in favour of 'Ladies Corner' and yet with a view to help Muslim Association against whom the said order was passed he had deliberately flouted the same by removing the son of Ravi P.W. 1 from the shop and then by locking the shop. The High Court also believed the evidence of P.W. 1 and held that the appellant had taken him to Police Station and detained him there for about 4 to 5 hours. The facts established clearly indicate the intention of the appellant and, therefore, the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant while behaving in that manner had interfered with the judicial proceedings and administration of justice. The High Court has also noted the fact that the appellant had directed his Sub-Inspector to prosecute the complaint for the averments made in his pleadings and the affidavit filed in the suit.