ADVOCATE GENERAL A P Vs. P SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) That is an application filed by the Advocate General under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, praying that the respondent be punished for having committed contempt of the Court of the Fifth City Magistrate, Secunderabad. Before referring to the contents of the two documents, which, according to the learned Advocate-General, constitute a gross contempt of Court,, it is necessary to refer to the history of the litigation leading up to the filing of the said documents by the respondent into the Court of the Fifth City Magistrate. On 15-5-1963 one Madanagopal Khandelwal, in hit capacity as the Managing Trustee- of Bab-i P. D. M. D Dharmasala Trust, filed a complaint before the Court of the Fifth City Magistrate, Secunderabad, against three persons by names Jagadish Pershad Gupta, Mukundalal, Shankerlal (who will be referred to as accused 1 to 3), alleging that on 9-5-1963 they, and their men had demolished a small cement pUtform casting about Rs 60/-, put up by one Brabmakanth, a lessee of the Trust, and they had alto intentionally insulted the complainant when he remonstrated with them, and consequently they had committed offences under sections 427, 447, and 504, Indian Penal Code The said complaint (GC No. 3587 of 1963) was dismissed by the Magistrate under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, by an order dated 17-5-1963. The complainant in that case did not take steps to challenge that order in revision. However, on 19-6-1963 the respondent herein, styling himself as a private detective and prosecutor, took up the cause of Mtdanagopal Khandelwai and himself filed a complaint before the Fith City Magistrate, Secundera. bad,, in respect of the incident which was alleged to have taken place aa 9-5-1963 and ia this complaint, he implicated not only accused 1 to 3 who had been implicated ic the earlier complaint filed by Madanagopal Khandelwal, but added four more accused to that list as accused 4 to 7 and thty were Durga Pershad, Srinivas Pitti, Govardbanlal and Harikishan. The offences alltfcd were under lections 147, 427, 447 read with sections 149 and 504, Indian Penal Code. The complaint petition was numbered as C. C. No. 3932 of 1963 and it was dismissed by the Magisirate on the same day i. e., 10-6-1963 under Section 203 Criminal Procedure Code, on the main ground that a prior complaint by the aggrieved party had been dismissed upon the same facts and it would not be in the interests of justice to entertain a fresh complaint, and the learned Magistrate was also of the opinion that the complaint filed by the respondent was frivolous and vexatious in nature. Against that order of dismissal, the respondent went up ia revision to the Court of the Chief City Magistrate at Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Petition No. 78 of 1963. The learned Chief City Magistrate, by an order dated 15-7-1963, dismissed the revision petition and in the course of his order observed as fofllows on the merits of the case and on the motives which had prompted the respondent to espouse the cause of Madangopal Khandelwal:

(2.) By the act of your drawing up the proceedings purporting to be your complaint to the court you preside over and copy served OB me together with a summon, you have committed one more offence punishable under section 219, 1 P. C.

(3.) Mr. P. Ramakrishna's attention is drawn to procedure as mentioned at page 6 of the affidavit in sub-para under para '8 But, if and when he makes a complain? under section 476, Cr. P. C. he will be commuting offence punishable under section 211 I. P. C. (under 2nd count) 1 sincerely desire that wisdom should dawn on Mr. P. Ramakrishna and he must expiate the wrongs and in his own interest, he should ameliorate the situation ; on the contrary, should he indulge ID allowing the matter to be aggravated, 1 should lik to warn him that he would icon be facing the consequences. 5. With due respect to eourts of law and in particular to the court of the Vth City Magtstrte in this instance, I refrain from atten ding the court, sa long it i presided ever by Mr P. Ramakrishna, cautiously to guard against untoward incidents, particularly when we are at loggerheads. Moreover, the procedure is not lawful and charge is not only fibreless, but absolutely unfounded, dubious in nature, deliberatly false and most malicious. With sincere and respectful apologies, to the Hon'ble Court. Seeunderabad, Sd/ P. Subba Rno, D/ 17th March, 1964. Respondent/Petitioner." We have underlined what, according to the learned Advocate-General, are the offending passages in the ;-documents. He submitted that the imputations made and the aspersion? cau by the respiadjnt up in the integrity and impartiality of the Magistrate in respect of his judicial acts, amount beyond a possibility of doubt to a grave contempt of Court. It wag pointed out that the respondent had scandalized the Court by attributing to the Magiitrate malice. bias, dishonesty and dereliction of duty betides holding out threats to the Magistrate aod charging his with haviag himself committed certain offences under the Indian Penal Code, and finally the respondent defied the authority of the Court by refusing to appear before it as long as it wai pi'eiided over by that Magistrate. On the other hand, the stand taken by the 'respondent, who argued his case himself, was that the content of the affidavit and the 'counter" filed by him, do not in law constitute contempt of Court. Now, the law relating to contempt is well settled and we need only refer to two authoritative decisions - one by the Queen's Bench Division and the other by the Supreme Court, In Reg v. Grayl. Lord Russell C. J. expounded the law as follows: