STATE Vs. BHERULAL PANNALAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice was issued by this Court on 29 -6 -1950 to one Devprakash, Sarpanch, Panchayat Board Raoti and to one Bherulal, Secretary of Panchayat Board Raoti to show cause why should not be committed for contempt of (sic) much as they sent a written communication Civil Judge, Sailana, in which they (sic).

(2.) BY his letter the Sarpanch and the tary tried to interfere with the course of Judge and tried to influence the Civil Judge, Saf(sic) The letter containing the above mentioned (sic)ings was written by the Panchayat Board, and signed by the Sarpanch and the Secretary and on 6 -7 -1950 it was sent to the Civil Sailana.

(3.) IN my opinion the above letter constitution interference in the administration of justice Panchayat Board has tried to influence the, Judge, Sailana and as such they have co(sic) ted contempt of Court. The members o Panchayat Board are expected to know that; pending matter they cannot write to the Judge in whose Court the case was pending; the matter should be decided in a part way. It cannot be urged that they had no(sic) intention to influence the Court. In my opinion question of intention is irrelevant in considered whether the offence is committed. The question in such cases is not as to what was the (sic) intention of the offender but what was the effect the publication. There is no doubt that their dency of the above letter is to interfere the administration of justice. The Pane Board has tried to influence the Civil Judge writing the letter.