LAWS(DLH)-1975-5-6

HIGH COURT Vs. SANT RAM

Decided On May 08, 1975
HIGH COURT Appellant
V/S
SANT RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings have arisen from a letter designated as a complaint and addressed by Sant Ram' to Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi in August, 1974.

(2.) A copy of this letter was sent by the Registry for his comments to Shri Sagar Chand Jain, Judge Small Cause Court, Delhi because of its containing certain serious allegations against him and he made a reference, while submitting his reply, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (mentioned hereinafter as 'the Act') suggesting action being taken against Sant Ram. The said reference and the impugned communication were placed before a Division Bench of this Court and the Bench ordered on llth November, 1974, on its own motion, issue of notice to Sant Ram to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.

(3.) The Registry issued the notice to Sant Ram in pursuance of this order and he filed a reply thereto. At the hearing the respondent urged befor us that the notice received by him was confined to the reference made by Shri Sagar Chand Jain and he was not answerable, for that reason, in respect of the alleged contempt of the High Court of Delhi and of Shri B. B. Gupta, previously Judge of the Small Cause Court and at present an Additional District and Sessions Judge. The order of the Division Bench dated llth November, 1974 did in no manner restrict itself to that portion of the letter as made objectionable imputations to Shri Sagar Chand Jain, it embraced the whole contumacious content of the communication and the notice issued by the Registry too did not bear out the respondent's contention. Still, so as to remove even a remote chance of misapprehension we ordered issue of a fresh notice on 13th March, 1975. A second notice was issued accordingly and it informed the respondent that his statements concerning Shri Sagar Chand Jain and Shri B. B. Gupta as well as the Judges of this Court prima facie appear to constitute criminal contempt as defined by sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act.