ADVOCATE GENERAL Vs. ABRAHAM GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition moved under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. by the Advocate General pf the State charging the respondent with having committed contempt of this Court The respondent, one Abraham George, was the second defendant in O. S. 81 of 1959 of the Alleppy Sub Court. The suit came to this Court in appeal A. S. 176 of 1970. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of the Honourable Mr. Justice T. S. Krishnamurthy Iyer and Honourable Mr. Justice N. D. P, Nam-baodirrpad. Judgment was delivered on 10-11-1972 dismissing the appeal. On 20-11-1972 the respondent addressed the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala by a Petition incorporating allegations against the Judges who decided the appeal A. S. 1976/1970. These allegations are said to scandalise the High Court. The petition sent to the Chief Justice is filed along with the petition of the Advocate General, marked Ext. P-l. Reference is made particularly to the following averments in the petition and it is said that these tend to scandalise and lower the authority of the High Court. [matter in Malayalam Omitteded. ] The respondent complains therein that the fraudulent documents produced by the plaintiff were suppressed and the counsel for the respondent was not allowed opportunity to argue to bring out the truth of the case. He also alleges that the Court held a farce, making up its mind before hearing and decided the case without recognising the principle that before the Court the Priest and the respondent are equals. Thus, it Is said, the Court has conducted itself hi such a way as to sell its prestige. Reference is made in the petition of the Advocate General to several similar petitions having been sent by the respondent to the High Court when the Original Suit was pending in the Sub-Court, Alleppy. It is said that the res- pondent has committed criminal contempt falling within the scope of Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 {hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THOUGH the case came up on an earlier occasion before another Division Bench the matter was not disposed of and it was subsequently posted before this Bench. Thereafter the respondent filed an affidavit said to be by wav of defence. This was filed on 2-6-1975. The respondent has no case even now that such a petition was sent to the Chief Justice due to any error of judgment on his Dart. He has no regret in having so represented to the Chief Justice by a petition. He sticks to his stand that what was done by the Division Bench was objectionable and was motivated which stand he reiterated at the hearing before us. He swears in his counter-affidavit that "he had forwarded about 7 complaints of the same type as Ext. P-l to various personages in power and authority including and up to the President of India". In justification of the charge of partiality levelled against the Judges who heard the atnoeal in Exhibit P-l letter addressed by him to the Chief Justice, he narrates the events in Court on the day his appeal was heard According to him when his counsel started to state the facts of the case he was interrupted by Justice R. D. P. Nam-boodiripad who is said to have made a reference to the existence of a lease deed as an answer to the appellant's case and it is said that though his counsel began to explain Justice Namboodiripad was- not in, a mood or temperament to hear further. Respondent states that his counsel then resumed his seat in disgust and Justice Namboodiripad was then in "a haste to start with dictation and called for Stenographer and hurried with dictation. " There is and further reference to his colleague in the Bench Justice T. S. Krishnamurthy Iyer sitting there in the Bench "with his eves closed" suggesting that Justice T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer did not play an independant part in the disposal of the appeal.

(3.) THE Party appeared in person and argued his case. He reiterated hi stand that what was done by him was for the good of the judiciary, that he knew that his charges were very serious, that he values his dignity more than the dignity of the judiciary, that he continues to feel the same wav about the Judges of this Court who decided his appeal and that his action did not amount to contempt. Evidently with a view to support his stand that the decision of the learned Judges of this Court was not correctly rendered he produced a number of documents in this Original Petition.