STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. V PRAKASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-contemner (hereinafter referred to as the 'contemner') is an Advocate practising in the Courts of District Munsif and Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile) at Mulug and other Courts in Warangal District. Sri K. Ramesh, District Munsif, Mulug and Sri K. Balarama Raju, Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile), Mulug addressed letters dt.13-10-1995 to the District Judge, Warangal, complaining many things against the contemner. However, in the case on hand, we are concerned only with what he is alleged to have done on 11-10-1995 between 4 and 4-30 p.m. in the office of the District Munsif's Court. On this aspect, the report of the District Munsif, Mulug reads as under:

(2.) Pursuant to the notice, the contemner filed a written statement denying all the allegations, in general and the occurrence alleged to have taken place on 11-10-1995 in particular. The written statement with regard to the alleged occurrence on 11-10-1995 reads as follows:

(3.) In view of the total denial of the occurrence by the contemner, we by order dt.4-5-1996 directed the District & Sessions Judge, Warangal to make an enquiry into the matter and submit his report within six weeks. Pursuant thereto, Sri N. Vidya Prasad, District & Sessions Judge, Warangal, held a detailed enquiry. In the course of the said enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Ex.A-1 was marked on the side of the complainant and R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-13 were marked on behalf of the contemner. On consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the learned District Judge held that there was absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and consequently the plea of alibi set up by the contemner is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, he submitted his report dt.9-9-1997 to this Court. A copy of the said report was furnished to the contemner to which he submitted his objections. He assailed the report on the ground that P.Ws.1 to 6 gave false evidence at the behest of the District Munsif and the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile), Mulug; their evidence suffers from many improbabilities and contradictions and the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced on his side to establish his plea of alibi is trustworthy and deserves acceptance.