STATE Vs. RADHEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 15 -7 -1966, while disposing of the revision application of Radhey Lal, the present contemner, (Cr. Revision No. 1913 of 1964) (since reported in 1967 AWR 356), G. Kumar, J. ordered that the complaint filed against him by the Nyaya Panchayat Sahani Kalan be brought on record and a notice issued to him to show cause why he should not be punished for committing contempt of that court. The aforesaid notice was issued under the following circumstances:

(2.) NOW so far as the first contention is concerned the Supreme Court in Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy -Appellant v. State of Madras -Respondent : AIR 1952 SC 149 while explaining the scope and effect of Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, in relation to Section 228 IPC observed as follows:

(3.) SRI S.N. Mulla then contended that as an essential ingredient of the offence of contempt of courts was the attributing of an improper motive to the court in the discharge of its judicial functions and as such a motive was to be found in the statements made by Radhey Lal, he could not be held guilty of contempt. I do not agree. As held in State of M.P. (B) scandalizing of a court might manifest itself in various ways, of which the attributing of an improper motive is one of the most important but by no means the only way. Another way in which the scandalizing of a court can take place is where a person acts in malice and attempts to impair the administration of justice by saying or doing something which by lowering the dignity and prestige of the court results in the impairing of the public confidence in its impartiality' or ability to protect the rights and liberties of the litigants whose cases are pending before it. Thus for the reasons stated above I am satisfied that Radhey Lal is guilty of committing contempt of the Nyaya Panchayat Sahani Kalan and is liable to be punished for the same.